4. 



Mi 



■MMfillftfeiMibttMi^^^^iBM 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/mentalphilosophy04have 



MENTAL PHILOSOPHY: 



INCLUDING THE 



miELLECT, SENSIBILITIES, AND WILL. 



BT 



JOSEPH HAVEN, D. D., L. L. D., 

lATB PKOF. OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINAKT, 

CHICAOO, ILL., AND LATE PROF. OF INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL 

PHILOSOPHY IN AMHERST COLLEGE. 



IMPROVED EDITION. 



NEW YORK : 
SHELDON AND COMPANY, 

8 MuRKAY Street. 

' 1876. 



.•^ ' .(i^ft^A. 



"o: 



1^-. 



nM 



mmi]]iu»wi.M.«M»afy»« ' « 



I 



Dr. Haven's Valuable Series of School and 



College Text-Books. 



♦ ♦ ♦ 



MORAXi PMir.og;opirE" 



• $2 00« 
1 TS 



mSTOUT OF AMCIEMT AMI> MOI>EIiar 



PHIX^OSOI^HT. • (In press). 



>JJ.itJl|l,W.»«MtnW!M<y,lRM>»ai.WJtilWJ'-M<WJi>M>»i»l t» i «J I BW l 







Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by 

aOULD AND LIKCOLN, 

In tnc Clerk's oflS.ce of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts, 



PRES 8 o F 

B O « K W E I. T. AND O H U B O H I T. T. , 

B OSTON. 



/. 9 /) 



..> 



4 



PREFACE 



ly any apology were necessary for adding yet am- 
otLm to the numerous works on Mental Philosophy 
which have recently appeared, the circumstances that 
led to the preparation of the present volume may, 
perhapSj constitute that apology. 

When called, several years smce, to the chair of 
Mental and Moral Philosophy, in this Institution, the 
text-books, then in use, seemed to me not well 
adapted to the wants of College students. Nor 
was it easy to make a change for the better. Of 
the works in this department, then generally in use 
in our Colleges, some presumed on a more extensive 
acquaintance with the science than most young men 
at this stage of education are likely to possess ; others, 
again, erring on the opposite extreme, were deficient 
in thorough and scientific treatment ; while most, if 
not all, were, at the best, incomplete, presenting but 



jV PREFACE. 

a partial survey of tlie entire field. In none oi tliem 
was the science of mind presented in its complete- 
ness and symmetry, in a manner at once simple, yet 
scientific ; in none of them, moreover, was it brought 
down to the present time. Something more com^ 
plete, more simple, more thorough, seemed desirable. 

Every year of subsequent experience as a teacher 
has but confirmed this impression, and made the want 
of a book better adapted to the purposes of instruc- 
tion, in our American Colleges, more deeply felt. 
^ The works on mental science, which have recently 
appeared in this country, while they are certainly a 
valuable contribution to the department of philosophy, 
seem to meet this deficiency in part, but only in part. 
They traverse usually but a portion of the ground 
which Psychology legitimately occupies, confining their 
attention, for the most part, to the Intellectual Facul- 
ties, to the exclusion of the Sensibilities^ and the Will. 

Feeling deeply the want which has been spoken 
of, it seemed to me, early in my course, that some- 
thing might be done toward remedying the deficiency, 
by preparing with care, and delivering to the classes, 
lectures upon the topics presented in the books, as 
they passed along. This course was adopted — a 
method devolving much labor upon the instructor, but 
rewarding him by the increased interest and more 



PREFACE. y 

rapid progress of tlie pupils. Little by little the 
present work thus grew up, as the result of my 
studies, in connection with my classes, and of my 
experience in the daily routine of the recitation and 
lecture room. Gradually the lectures, thus prepared, 
came to take the place more and more of a text- 
book, until there seemed to be no longer any reason 
why they should not be put into the hands of the 
student as such. 

It is much easier to decide what a work on mental 
Bcience ought to be, than to produce such a work. It 
should be comprehensive and complete, treating of all 
that properly pertains to Psychology, giving to every 
part its due proportion and development. It should 
treat the various topics presented, in a thorough and 
scientific manner. It should be conversant with the 
literature of the department, placing the student in 
possession, not only of the true doctrines, but, to some 
extent also, of the history of those doctrines, showing 
\iim what has been held and taught by others upon 
the points in question. In style it should be clear, 
perspicuous, concise, yet not so barren of ornament 
as to be destitute of interest to the reader. 

At these qualities the writer has aimed in the 
present treatise ; with what success, others must d^ 
termine. 



^ PREFACE. 

All science, in proportion as it is complete and 
true, becomes simple. In proportion as this re- 
sult is attained, the labor bestowed upon it disap- 
pears from view, and the writer seems, perhaps, to 
others, to have said but a very plain and common 
thing. This is peculiarly the case with mental 
science. The difficulty of discussing with clearness 
and simplicity, and, at the same time, in a complete, 
and thorough manner, the difficult problems of Psy- 
chology, will be understood only by those who mako 
the attempt. 

J. H. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 
CHAPTER I. 

VAfiW 

ON THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF MENTAL SCIENCE 15 

Sbotion L — Nature of the Science 15 

Section IL — Importance of Mental Science 20 

CHAPTER II. 

ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE MENTAL POWERS 29 

Section L — General Analysis 29 

Section II. — Analysis of Intellectual Powers 31 

Section III. — Historical Sketch — Various Divisions of the 

Mental Faculties 35 

DIVISION FIRST. 

THE intellectual FACULTIES. 

PRBLIMINART TOPICS. 

CHAPTER I. 
CONSCIOUSNESS. 39 

CHAPTER II. 
ATTENTION. 46 

CHAPTER III. 
CJONCEPTION 53 



eiiJ CONTENTS 

PAET FIRST. 

. THE PRESENTATIVE POWER. 

PAGE 

BENSE, OR PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 53 

Section I. — Gwe^al Observations , 59 

SECTION II. — AN4I.T8IS OF THE PERCEPTIVE PROCESS 61 

Section III. — Anatysis and Classification of the Qualities 

OF Bodies 66 

Section IY. — Orga>?s of Sense — Analysis of their Several 

FUNCTIOls'S 68 

Section Y. — Amount of Information derived from the Re- 
spective SBNSi!.S *J2 

Section YI. — Credibiliiy of our Sensations and Perceptions 81 

Section YIL — Historical Sketch 84 

I. Op different Divisions of the Quaijties of . 

Bodies 84 

XL Of different Theories of Perception 81 

PART SECOND. 

THE EBPEESBNTATITE POWBB. 
CHAPTER I. 



• 



MEMORY % 

Section I. — Mental Reproduction 96 

I. Nature 96 

II. Laws 101 

ection IL — Mental REcoaNiTioN, as distinguished from Men- 
tal Reproduction » 113 

I. General Character ^ 113 

II. What is implied in an Act of Memory..... 118 

III, Qualities of Memory 118 

IY. Memory as related to Intellectual 

Strength 121 

Y. Cultivation op Memory. 126 

VI. Effects of Disease on Memory 128 



CONTENTS ix 

Section II. — Continued, paob 

VII. Influence op Memory on the Happiness 

OF Life 131 

VIIL Historical Sketch — Different Theorles cp 

Memory 133 

CHAPTER II. 
IMAGINATION 131 

Section I. — General Character op this Faculty 131 

Section II. — Relation to other Faculties 138 

Section III. — Active and Passive Imagination 140 

Section IY. — • Imagination a simple Faculty 142 

Section Y. — Not. merely the Power op Combination 144 

Section YI. — Limited to Sensible Objects 14t 

Section YII. — Limited to new^ Results 148 

Section YIII. — A Voluntary Power 149 

Section IX. — Use and Abuse op Imagination 162 

Section X. — Culture op Imagination 154 

Section XL — Historic Sketch — Various Definitions and 

Theories op Imagination by different Writers.. 168 



PART THIRD. 

THE REFLECTIVE POWER. 
CHAPTER I. 

THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. — GENERALIZATION 166 

Section I. — Nature op the Synthetic Process 1S6 

Section H. — Province and Relation of several Terms em- 
ployed TO DENOTE, IN PaRT, OR AS A WHOLE, THIS 

Power op the Mind 17*? 

Section III. — Historical Sketch — The Realist and Nomin- 
alist Controversy It^ 

CHAPTEE II. 

THE ANALYTIC PROCESS -^ REASONING 180 

Section I. — The Nature op the Process. • 181 

Section II. — Relation op Judgment and Reasoning 181 

1* 



X CONTENTS. 

■PAGB 

SBcnoK III. — Different Kinds of REASONma. , 189 

I. Demonstrative 189 

IL Probable — (1.) From Testimony; (2.) Feom 

Experience ; (3.) From Analogy 192 

Section IV. — Use of Hypotheses and Theories in Reason- 
ing 199 

Sbctioit V, — Different Forms of Reasoning 203 

I. Analysis of the Proposition , 203 

IL Analysis of the Syllogism 205 

III. Laws of Syllogism 207 

rv. Different Kinds of Syllogism 209 

Y. Different Forms of Syllogism 210 

VL Laws op Thought on which the Syllogism 

depends 212 

VIL Use and Yalub of the Syllogism. 213 

Yin. Historical Sketch op the Science of Logic. 219 



PART FOURTH. 

intuitiye power. 

CHAPTER I. 
EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THIS FACULTY 229 

CHAPTER II. 

TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS FURNISHED BY THIS FAC- 
ULTY... 238 

Section I. — Primary Truths 238 

Akction IL — Intuitive Conceptions 241 

I. Space 241 

II. Time , 244 

III. Identity , , , 249 

lY. Cause , 25'7 

Y. Idea oi? the Beautiful and the Right 2G2 

CHAPTER III. 
THE CONCEPTION AND COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 263 

Section I. — Conception of the Beautiful. 263 

Section II. — Cognizance op the Beautiful , 2SP 



COKrENTS. 3a 

CHAPTER IV. 

FACffi 

WEA AND COGNIZANCE OF THE RIGHT 303 

Section L — Idea of Right — Whence comes the Ie ea 303 

section ii. — cognizaxce of the right — 1. nature op con- 
SCIENCE ; 2. Authority op Conscience •. . . . 314 

SUPPLEMENTARY TOPICS. 

CHAPTER I. 

INTELLIGENCE IN MAN AS DISTINGUISHED FROM IN- 
TELLIGENCE IN THE BRUTE 329 

CHAPTER II. 

MIND AS AFFECTED BY CERTAIN STATES OF THE BRAIN 

AND NERVOUS SYSTEM 342 

Section I. — Sleep 343 

Section II. — Dreams 351 

Section III. — Somnambulism « 360 

Sbotion rv. — Insanity 368 



DIVISION SECOND. 

THE SENSIBILITIES. 

PRELIMINAET TOPICS. 

CHAPTER I. 

NATURE, DIPFICULTT, AND IMPORTANCE OP THIS DB- 

PARTMENT OP THE SCIENCE 371 

CHAPTER II. 

ANALYSIS AND CLASSIPIC^ TION OP THE SENSIBILITIES 382 



xii CONTENTS. 

PART FIRST. 

SIMPLEEMOTIONS. 

OHAPTER I. 

INSTINCTIYE EMOTIONS 395 

Section L — Op that general State op Mind known as 

Cheerfulness, and its Opposite, Melancholy.. 396 

Section II. — Sorrow at Loss op Friends 399 

Section III. — Sympathy with the Happiness and Sorrow op 

Others • 402 

CHAPTER II. 
RATIONAL EMOTIONS 409 

Section I. — Emotions op Joy or Sadness, arising prom the 
Contemplation op our own Excellence, or the 

Eeverse 409 

Section II. — Enjoyment op the Ludicrous 413 

Section III. — Enjoyment op the New and Wonderful 424 

Section IY. — Enjoyment op the Beautiful, and the Sublime. 427 
Section Y. — Satisfaction in Yiew op right Conduct, and Re- 
morse IN Yiew op wrong 434 

PART SECOND. 

THE AFFECTIONS. 

cha: ter I. 

BENEYOLENT AFFECTIONS 441 

Section I. — Love op Kindred 442 

Section II. ^ Love op Friends 447 

Section III. — Love op Benefactors 451 

Section IY. — Love op Home and Country 454 

CHAPTER II. 

MALEYOLENT AFFECTIONS 458 

Resentment, with its Modifications, Envy, Jealousy, Re- 
venge , 458-46S 



CONTENTS. xiii 

PART THIRD. 

THBDESIRBS. 
CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

NATUBB AND CLASSIFICATION OF DESIRES «•. 473 

CHAPTER II. 

DESIBES ARISING FROM THE PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION. 44^ 

CHAPTER III. 

DESIRES ARISING FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 

MIND 481 

Section I. — Desire op Happiness 481 

Section IL — Desire of Kjnowledge 48t 

Section III. — Desire of Power. 490 

* 

Section IY. — Certain Modifications of the Desire of Power, 

AS Desire of Superiority and Desire of Pos- 
session 493 

Section Y. — Desire op Society 501 

Section YI. — Desire op Esteem 505 

CHAPTER IV. 
HOPE AND FEAR. 51(? 

DIVISION THIRD. 
THE WILL. 

PRELIMINARY OB SER Y ATIONS. 

CHAPTER I. 

NATURE OF THE WILL 520 

Section L — Elements involved in an Act of "Will 521 

Section IL — Investigation op these Elements 52? 

L Motive ......... 523 



jty CONTENTS. 

Section II • • Continued. page 

II. Choice , * 526 

TTT. Executive Yolition • 530 

CHAPTER II. 
BJCUlTION of the will to other faculties 531 

CHAPTER III. 

TTREEDOM OF THE WILL 538 

Section I. — Presumptions in Favor op Freedom 539 

Section IL — Direct Argument 544 

CHAPTER lY. 

CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING 549 

Section I. — Contrary Choice 649 

Section II. • — Power to do what we are not disposed to do 561 

Section in. — Influence op Motives 554 

L Is the Will always as the greatest ap- 
parent Good 554 

n. Is the Will determined by the strongest 

Motive 555 

ILL Are Motives the Cause and Volitions the 

Effect.. 666 

CHAPTER V. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE WILL VIEWED IN CONNECTION 

WITH CERTAIN TRUTHS OF RELIGION 560 

Section L — The Power which God exerts over the Human 

Mind and Will , . , 561 

Section IL — Man's Power over Himself 66Q 

CHAPTER VI. 
STRENGTH OF WILL... 669 

CHAPTER VII. 

EISTORTCAL SKETCH— -OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY 

RESPECTING FREEDOM OF THE WILL 5':3 



INTRODUCTION. 



CHAPTER I. 

ON THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF MENTAL SCIENOK. 

§ I. — Natueb of the Science. 

M^ntcU Philosophy^ what, — What is Mental Philosophy, 
as distinguished from other branches of science ? 

Philosophy, in the wide sense usually given it, denotes 
the investigation and explanation of the causes of things ; 
it seeks to discover, and scientifically to state, the general 
laws both of matter and mind ; its object is to ascertain 
facts, and their relation to each other. Mental Philosophy 
has for its object to ascertain the facts and laws of mental 
operation. 

Metaphysics^ what, — Of the two grand departments of 
human knowledge — the science of matter and the science 
of muid — the former, comprising whatever relates to mate* 
rial phenomena, the science of nature, is known under the 
general name of Physics / the latter, the science of mind, 
is often designated by the corresponding term, neither vei^ 
correct nor very fortunate. Metaphysics, This term is often 
used to include whatever does not properly fall under the 
class of Physics. In its strict sense, it does not include so 
much, but denotes properly the science of abstract truth ; 
the science of being, in itself considered — apart from its 



IQ INTRODUCTION- 

particular accidents and properties — that whicli we now caD 
Ontology. The term is commonly ascribed to Aristotle, 
but incorrectly. It originated with his followers. Several 
treatises of his relating to natural science having been col- 
lected and pubUshed, under the title ra (pvama^ other 
treatises on philosophical subjects were afterward arranged 
under the title ra i^era ^votKa^ indicating their relation to 
the former, as proper to be read after the perusal of those 
Hence the term came into use in the general sense, already 
spoken of, to denote whatever is not included under physics, 
although originally employed with a much more limited 
meaning. 

Mental Philosophy not properly Metaphysics, — Neithei 
in its wider nor in its stricter sense does this term properly 
designate the science of mind. Mental Philosophy neithei 
embraces every thing not included under physics, nor is it 
the science of abstract being. As one of the intellectual, in 
distinction from the physical sciences, it holds a place along 
with Logic — the science of the laws of human thought and 
reasoning; Ethics — the science of morals; Pohtics — the 
science of human organization and government ; to which 
should be added Ontology — the science of pure being ; all 
which are properly embraced under the term Metaphysics 
in its wider and popular sense. To designate the science oi 
mind in distinction from these other sciences, some more 
definite term is required. The word Psychology is now 
coming into use as such a term. 

Me7ital Philosophy a Natural Science. — The science oi 
mind, indeed, deserves in one aspect to be ranked among 
the natural sciences. It is a science resting on experience 
observation, and induction — a science of facts, phenomena 
and laws which regulate the same. That which is specifically 
its object of investigation — the human mmd — is strictly a 
part, and most important part of nature^ unless we exclude 
man himself from the world to which he belongs, and of 
which he is lord. 



INTRODUCTION. 17 

.Possibility of such a Science, — The possibility of the 
ficience of the human mind has been denied by some ; 
but without good reason. If we can observe and classify 
the phenomena of nature, in her varied forms, animate and 
inanimate, and ascertain in this way the laws to which she 
is subject ; if it is possible thus to construct a scien<3e of 
plants, of animals, of the elements that compose the sub- 
stance of the earth, of the strata that lie arranged beneath its 
surface, of the forces and agencies that at any time, recent 
or remote, have been at work to produce the changes which 
have taken place upon and within our globe— nay, more, if 
leaving our own planet we may, by careful observation of 
the heavenly bodies, learn their places, movements, dis- 
tances, estimate their magnitude and density, measure their 
speed, and thus construct a science of the stars, surely the 
phenomena of our own minds, the data of our own con- 
sdousness, must be at least equally within our reach, and 
equally capable of observation, classification, and scientific 
statement. If we can observe the habits of animals and 
plants, we can observe also the habits of men, and the phe- 
nomena of human thought and passion. If the careful in- 
duction of general truths and principles from observed facts 
form the basis and method of true science in the one case, 
so in the other. 

Science of Matter and of Mind analogous. — The science 
of matter, and the science of mind agree perfectly in this, that 
all we know of either is simply the phenomena which they 
exhibit. We know not matter as it is in itself, but only as 
it affects our senses. We perceive certain qualities or prop- 
erties of it, and these we embody in our definition, and 
beyond these we say nothing, because we know nothing 
Equally relative is our knowledge of mind. What it is in 
itself we know not, but only its phenomena as presented to 
our observation and consciousness. It thinks and feels, it 
perceives, remembers, reasons, it loves, hates, desires, de- 
termines; these exercises are matter of experien(5e and 



|g INTRODUCTION. 

observation ; they constitute our knowledge and our defini 
tion of mind, and beyond we cannot go. 

Modes and Sources of Information the same in both.— 
This being the case, it is evident that both our sources oi 
information, and our mode of investigation, must be essen 
tially the same in the two departments of science. In either 
case our knowledge must be limited to phenomena merely, 
and these must be learned by observation and experience. 
A careful induction of particulars will place us in possession 
of general principles, or laws, and these, correctly ascertained 
and stated, will constitute our science, whether of matter or 
mind. 

They differ in one Respect. — In one respect, indeed, our 
means of information with regard to the two branches of 
science differ. While both matter and mind can be known 
only by the observation of the phenomena which they pre- 
sent, in mental science the field of such observation Hes in 
great part within ourselves — the phenomena are those of our 
own present or former consciousness — the mind is at once 
both the observer and the object observed. This circum- 
stance, which at first seems to present a difficulty, is in 
reality a great advantage which this science possesses over 
all others. 

Apparent Difficidty.- — The difficulty which it seems to 
present is this: How can the eye perceive itself? How can 
the mind, as employed, for example, in remembering, or 
judging, or willing, inspect its own operations, since the 
moment its attention is turned to itself it is no longer en- 
gaged in that operation which it seeks to inspect — is no 
longer remembering, or judging, or willing, but is employed 
only in self-observation ? We admit that the mind, in the 
very instant of its exercising any given faculty, cannot make 
itself, as thus engaged, the object of attention. But the 
operations of the mind, as given in consciousness, at any 
moment, may be retained or replaced by memory the next 
mom-^nt, and as thus replaced and attested, may stand be 



Ix^TRODUCTION. ig 

fore lis the proper objects of our investigation, so lopg as we 
please. This puts it in the power of the mind to observe 
and to know itself, 

Real Advantage, — The advantage accruing from the cir- 
cumstance that the phenomena to be observed are those of 
our own present or former consciousness, is this: that those 
phenomena are fully within our reach, and also are capable 
of being known with greater certainty. In physical scienc© 
the facts may be scattered over the globe, and over centu- 
ries of time, not personally accessible to any one observer in 
their completeness, and yet that completeness of observa- 
tion may be essential to correct science. In psychology, thf 
observer has within himself the essential elements of the 
science which, he explores ; the data which he seeks, are the 
data of his own consciousness ; the science w^hich he con- 
structs is the science of himself. 

Comparative Value of this hind of Knowledge, — The 
knowledge thus given in conscious experience is more cor 
rect and reliable than any other. It has this peculiarity 
that it cannot be disputed. I may be mistaken in regard 
to the properties of a piece of matter which I hold in my 
hand, and which seems to me to be square or round, of such 
or such a color, and of such or such figure, size, and density ; 
but I cannot be mistaken as to the fact, that it seems to me 
to be of such color, figure, etc. The former are results of 
perception and judgment ; the latter is an immediate datum 
of consciousness, and cannot be called in question. To 
doubt our own consciousness is to call in question our very 
doubt, since the only evidence of our doubting is the con- 
soiousness that we doubt. As to the phenomena of the ex- 
ternal world — the things that are passing without — I may 
be mistaken ; as to what is passing in my own mind — the 
thoughts, feelings, volitions of my own conscious self — there 
IS no room for doubt or mistake. 

Not limited to Consciousness, — I do not mean, by what 
has been said, to imply that in our own observation of 



20 INTRODUOTION, 

mental phenomena We are limited to the experience of our 
own minds, but only that this is the principal source of our 
mformation. The mental operations of others, so far as \ve 
have access to their minds, are also legitimate data. These 
we may observe for ourselves in the daily intercourse of life, 
may notice how, under given circumstances, men will think, 
feel, and act, and the knowledge thus acquired will consti- 
tute a valuable addition to our self-knowledge. We may 
receive also, in this science, as in any other, the testimony of 
others as to f leir own mental states and operations. In so 
far as psychoiogy relies upon these sources, it stands on a 
footing with other sciences. 

§ II. — Importance of Mental Scienoe. 

Comparative Neglect. — That the science of the mind haa 
not hitherto held that high place in the public regard and 
estimation, at least in our own country, to which it is justly 
entitled, as compared with other branches of knowledge, 
can hardly be denied. The cause of this comparative neg- 
lect is to be found partly in the nature of the science itself, 
partly in the exclusively practical tendencies of the age. 

The first Cause considered, — The nature of the science 
is such that its benefits are not immediately apparent. The 
dullest mind can perceive some use in chemistry, or botany, 
or natural philosophy. They are of service in the analysis 
of soils, the rotation of crops, the comprehension of the 
laws of mechanical and chemical forces. But mental science 
has no such application, no such practical results patent and 
obvious to the careless eye. Its dwelling-place and sphere 
of action lie removed somewhat from the observations of 
men. It has no splendid cabinets or museums to throw 
open to the gaze of the multitude. It cannot arrange in 
magnificent collection all the varieties of mental action, all 
the complications of thought and feeling as yet observed, 
Qor illustrate by curious instruments, and nice experiments, 



INTRODUCTION. 21 

the wonderful laws of association, the subtle changes and 
swift flashes of wit and fancy, and quick strong emotion, the 
impulses of desire, the curious play of volition, the uney^ 
plained mystery of thought, the lights and shadows thau 
come and go upon the field of consciousness. For these 
curious and wonderful phenomena of the inner life there are 
no philosophic instruments or experiments, no charts or dia^ 
grams. Nor are there yet brilHant discoveries to be made, 
nor splendid rewards to be gained by the votaries of this 
science. " Four or five new metals," says Sydney Smith, 
*' have been discovered within as many years, of the exist- 
ence 6f which no human being could have had any suspi- 
cion ; but no man that I know of pretends to discover four 
or five new passions." 

The second Cause. — But the chief obstacle, as I suppose, 
to the more general cultivation of mental science is to be 
found in the exclusively practical tendencies of the age. We 
are a people given more to action than to thought, to enter- 
prise than to speculation. This is perhaps inseparable from 
the condition of a new state. An age of action is seldom 
an age of reflection. External life demands the energies of 
a new people. The elements are to be subdued, mountains 
levelled, graded, tunnelled, roads constructed, cities built, 
and many useful, necessary works to be wrought with toil 
and cost, before that period comes of golden afBuence, and 
leisure, and genial taste, and elegant culture, that can at 
once appreciate and reward the higher efibrts of philosophic 
investigation. 

JRelation to other Sciences. — The importance of mental 
science appears from its relation to other sciences. We find 
in nature a gradually ascending series. As we pass from 
the observation and study of the mineral to the forms of 
vegetable life, from the plant to the insect — and thence te 
the animal, and from the animal, in his various orders an<i 
classes, to man, the highest type of animated existences on 
the earth, we are conscious of a progression in the rank and 



22 INTEODUCTIO]^. 

dignity of that which we contemplate. But it is only wheE 
we turn our attention from all these to the intelligence thai 
dwells within the man, and makes him master and lord of 
this lower world, that we stand upon the summit of ele- 
vation and overlook the wide field of previous inquiry 
Toward this all other sciences lead, as paths along the 
mountain side, starting fi-om different points, and running 
in different directions, converge toward a common terminus 
at the summit. As the mineral, the plant, the insect, the 
animal, in all then- curious and wonderful organizations, are 
necessarily inferior to man, so is the science of them, how- 
ever important and useful, subordinate to the science of man 
himself; and as the human body, curious and wonderful in 
its organism and its laws, is nevertheless inferior in dignity 
and worth to the spirit that dwells within, and is the true 
lord of this fair castle and this wide and beautiful domain, 
80 is the science of the body, its mechanism, its chemistry, 
its anatomy, its laws, inferior to the science of the mind, the 
divinity within. 

Other Sciences Creations of the Mind, — Many of the 
sciences justly regarded as the most noble, are themselves 
the creations of the mind. Such, for example, is the science 
of number and quantity — a science leading to the most sub- 
lime results, as in the calculations of the astronomer, yet a 
pure product of the human intellect. Indeed what is aD 
science but the work of mind ? The creations of art are 
wonderful, but the mind that can conceive and execute 
those creations is still more to be admired. Language if 
wonderful, but chiefly as a production and expression of 
mind. The richness, the affluence, the eloquence, the exact- 
ness, the beauty, for example, of the Greek tongue, of what 
are these the qualities, and where did they dwell — in the 
Greek language, or in the Greek mind ? Which is really 
the mon-e noble and'wonderful then, the language itself, or 
the mind that called into being such a language, and em 



INTRODUCTION. 23 

ployed it as an instrument of expression ; and of wbich is 
the science most noble and worthy of regard ? 

We admire the genius of a Kepler and a Copernicus, t\ e 
sympathize with their enthusiasm as they observe the 
movements and develop the laws of the heavenly bodies; we 
look through the telescope, not without a feeling of awe, as 
it seems to lift us up, and bear us away into the unknown 
and the infinite, revealing to us what it would almost seem 
had never been intended for the human eye to see ; but one 
thing is even m.ore wonderful than the telescope — that is 
the mind that contrived it. One things is more awe-in- 
spiring than the stars, and that is the mind that discovers 
their hidden laws, and unlocks their complicated move- 
ments ; and when we would observe the most curious and 
wonderful thing of all, we must leave the tubes and the 
tables, the calculations and the diagrams with which the 
man works, and study the man timself, the workman. 

Relation of this Science to the practical Arts and Sci- 
ences. — But aside from the view now presented, the con- 
nection of mental science with other and practical arts and 
sciences is much more intimate than is usually supposed 
Take for example the very noblest of all sciences — the- 
ology ; we find it, in an important sense, based upon and 
receiving its shape and character from the views which we 
entertain, and the philosophy which we adopt of the human 
mind. Our j)hilosophy underfies our theology, even as the 
solid strata that He unseen beneath the surface give shap^ 
and contour and direction to the lofty mountain range. 

Psychology as related to Theology, — Xot to speak of the 
very idea which we form of the divine Being, borro'?rei as 
it must be, in a sense, from our previous conception of the 
human mind, and our own spiritual existence, not to speak 
of the arg-uments bv which we seek to establish the existence 
of the divine Being, involving as they do some of the nicest 
and most important of the laws of human thought, what 
problems, we paay ask, go deej)er mto the groundwoik of 



24 INTRODUCTION. 

any theological system than those pertaining to human 
ability, and the freedom of the will — the government of the 
affections and desires — the power of a man over himself, to 
be other and better than he is, and to do what God requires. 
But these are questions purely psychological. You cannot 
stir a step in the application of theology to practical ife, 
till you have settled in some way these questions, and that 
view, whatever it be, crude or profound, intelligible or ab- 
surd, is, for the time, your science, your philosophy of the 
mind. 

Psychology as related to the healing Art, — Scarcely less 
intimate is the connection of psychology with the science of 
Ufe. The physician finds in the practice of his profession, 
that in order to success, the laws of the human mind must 
constitute an important part of his study — how to avoid, 
and how to touch, the secret springs of human action. A 
word rightly spoken is often better than a medicine. In 
order to comprehend the nature of disease he must under- 
stand the effect on the bodily organization of the due, and 
also of the undue, exertion of each of the mental faculties ; 
in fine, the whole relation of the mind to the bodily functions, 
and its influence over them — a field of inquiry as yet but 
imperfectly understood, if indeed adequately appreciated by 
the medical profession. 

As related to Oratory, — To the public speaker, whether 
at the bar, in the public assembly, in the halls of legislation, 
or in the pulpit, it need hardly be said that a knowledge of 
.his science, and the ability to make practical use of it, is 
jidispensable. Success in oratory depends, doubtless, in a 
measure, upon other things ; but he who best understands 
the laws and operations of the human mind, how to touch 
the sensibilities, how to awaken the passions, how to excite 
the fears and the hopes, how to rouse the resentment of his 
hearers, how to soothe the troubled spirits, and allay the 
excitement of feeling, and disarm prejudice, and call into 
play the sober reason and calm judgment of man, will 



INTRODUCTION. 2o 

best be able to accomplish his purpose. He will be able to 
turn to his own account the circumstances of the occasion, 
and like a skilful organist, touch with ease, yet with precision 
and effect, what key he will. No man can do this who doe? 
not well understand the instrument. 

As related to the Art of Education, — Especially is this 
science of use to the teacher in the knowledge which it gives 
faim of the mind of his pupil, and the skill in dealing with 
that mind. The mind of the pupil is to him the instru- 
ment on which he is required to play — a curious instrument 
of many and strange keys and stops — capable of being 
touched to wonderful harmony, and to fearful discord ; — and 
to handle this instrument well is no ordinary acquirement. 
What shall we say of the man who knows nothing of the 
instrument, but only the music to be performed, nothing of 
the mind to be taught, but only the knowledge to be com- 
municated? To know the mind that is to be taught, how to 
stimulate, how to control, how to encourage, how to restrain, 
how to guide and direct its every movement and impulse, is 
not this the very first and chief thing to be knov^ni ? 

Connection of this Science with our own personal Inter- 
ests. — The importance of mental science is evident not only 
from its relation to other sciences, but from the relation it 
sustains to man and his higher interests. Some sciences in- 
terest us as abstractions — merely speculative systems of 
truth ; others as realities, but of such a nature, and so re- 
mote from the personal interests and wants of the race to 
which we belong, that they make little appeal to our sensi- 
oilities. Thus it is with mathematical and astronomical 
cruth. The heavenly bodies, whose movements we observe, 
hold on their swift silent way, in the calmness of their own 
eternity, regardless of man and his destiny, even as they 
rolled ages ago, and as they will ages hence. What have 
we to do with them or they with us ? We watch them ae 
they hold their course through the deep firmament, at 
children, standing on the sea-side, watch the distant snowy 



26 INTRODUCTION. 

sail that glides silently along the horizon, afar cff, "beautiful, 
unknown. So sail those swift ships of the firmament, and 
only he who made them knows their history. 

Psychology in contrast with other Sciences in this respect 
— But when we come to the study of oursehes, and the 
laws of our own intelligence, our inquiries assume a practical 
importance which attaches to no other departments of truth. 
It is no longer the sail dimly visible on the far horizon, but 
our own conscious being that is the object of thought. 
The question no longer is. Whence comes that swift ship, and 
whither goes it, but, What am I, and whither going ; what 
my history, and my destiny ? This mysterious soul which 
animates me, and is the presiding divinity over all my 
actions, what is it, with all its wondrous faculties — sense, 
imagination, reason, will — those powers of my being ? What 
IS that change which passes upon me, which men call sleep., 
and that more mvsterious and fearful chang^e that must soon 
pass upon me, and that men call death ? How is it that 
events of former years come back to mind, with all the 
freshness and reality of passing scenes ? What is that prin- 
ciple of my nature that ever assumes to itself the right of 
command, saying to all my inclinations and passions, thou 
shalt, and thou shalt not, and when I disobey that mandate, 
filling my whole soul with misery, my whole future existence 
with remorse ? And what and whence that word oughts 
that has so much to do with me and my pursuits : ought 
what, and why ought, and to whom ? — Am I free, or am I 
subject to inevitable necessity; if free, then how are all m} 
actions controlled, and predetermined by a divine Provi- 
dence ? If not free, then how am I responsible ? Who shall 
solve this problem ; who shall read me this strange inex- 
plicable riddle of human life ? Such are the questions and 
themes which mental philosophy discusses, and we perceive 
at a glance their intimate connection with the highest inter- 
»^8ts and personal wants of man as an individual. 

^^'Onnectiort of this Science icith mental Uiscrpline. — TTii' 



INTRODUCTION. 2'J 

importance of mental science may be further apparent *n its 
effect; on the culture and discipline of the mind. It is the 
peculiar effect of this science to sharpen and quicken the 
mental powers, to teach precision and exactness of thought 
and expression, to train the mind to habits of close atten- 
tion and concentration of thought, to lead it to inquire into 
the causes and relations of things ; in a word, to render it 
familiar with the great art of distinguishing things that 
differ. It would hardly be possible to name another branch 
of study that tends so directly to produce these results in the 
cultivation of the mind. 



CHAPTER II. 

ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE MENTAL 

POWERS. 

Importance of such a preliminary Investigation, — It is 
of the highest importance, as we approach a science like the 
one before us, to obtain, if possible, at the outset, a clear 
and comprehensive view of the field about to be explored. 
It is desirable that the traveller, before entering a new 
country, should learn something respecting its extent, ita 
political and geo^aphical divisions, its manners, its laws, its 
history. Even more necessary is it, in entering upon a new 
science, to know its boundaries and divisions, to obtain a 
clear idea, at the very commencement of our inquiries, ot 
the number, nature, extent, and arrangement of the subject 
we are about to investigate. Otherwise we shall be liable 
to confusion and error, shall not know where, at any mo- 
ment, in the wide field of investigation, we may chance to 
be, or what relation the topic of our immediate inquiry 
holds to (tie whole science before us ; as a ship on tha 



28 INTRODUCT ON 

0(iean, witliout observation and reckoning, loses lier latituvle 
and lon2:itude. We shall be liable to confound those dis- 
tinctions which are of less, with those which are of more im- 
portance, and to mistake the relation which the several 
topics of inquiry bear to each other. Especially is this pre- 
vious survey and comprehension of the subject essential in 
a science like this, where so much depends on the clearness 
and accuracy with which we distinguish differences ofteB 
minute, and on the definiteness with which we mark off and 
lay out the several divisions of our work. A thorough an- 
alysis and classification of the various faculties of the mind 
is necessary, in the first place, before we enter upun ino 
special investigation of any one of them. Such a classifica- 
tion must serve as our guide-book and chart in all furthei 
inquiries. 

Difficulty of such an Investigation. — The importance ol 
«uch a preliminary investigation is scarcely greater than its 
difficulty. It would be easy, indeed,- to mention, almost at 
random, a considerable number of mental operations, with 
whose names we are famihar ; and a Httle thought would enable 
as to enlarge the list almost indefinitely. But such a list, 
even though it might chance to be complete, would be neithei 
an analysis nor a classification of these several powers. It 
would neither teach us their relations to each other and to 
the whole, nor enable us to understand the precise nature 
and office of each faculty. We could not be sure that we 
had not included under a common name operations essenti- 
ally different, or assigned distinct places and offices to pow- 
ers essentially the same. Much depends, moreover, on the 
order in which we take up the several faculties. 

It is evident at a glance that to form a clear, correct, and 
comprehensive arrangement of the powers of the mind, is 
no slight undertaking. A complete understanding of the 
whole science of the mind is requisite. It is one of the last 
things which the student is prepared to undertake, yet one 
of the first which he require? to know. Unfortunate^ to/ 



INTRODUCTION. 29 

the science, perhaps no topic in the whole circle ^f inielleo- 
tual investigation has been more generally neglected, by 
those who have undertaken to unfold the philosophy of 
the mind, than the one now under consideration, 

§ I. — General Analysis. 

A mental Faculty^ what. — In making out any scheme 
oi' classification, the question at once arises, how are we to 
know what are, and what are not distinct faculties ? Id 
order to this, we must first determine what constitutes a 
mental faculty. 

What, then J is a faculty of the mind ? I understand by 
this term simply the mind's power of acting, of doing some- 
thing, of puttmg forth some energy, and performing some 
operation. The mind has as many distinct faculties, as it 
has distinct powers of action, distinct functions, distinct 
modes and spheres of activity. As its capabilities of action 
and operation differ, so its faculties differ. 

TTie Miyid not complex, — Now mental activity is, strictly 
speaking, one and indivisible. The mind is not a complex 
substance, composed of parts,- but single and one. Its activ- 
ity may, however, be exercised in various ways, and upon 
widely different classes of objects; and as these modes of 
action vary, we may assign them different names, and treat 
of them in distinction from each other. So distinguished 
and named, they present themselves to us as so many dis- 
tinct powers or faculties of the mind. But when this ii 
done, and we make out, for purposes of science, our com- 
plete list and classification of these powers, we are not to 
forget that it is, after all, one and the same indivisible spirit- 
ual principle that is putting forth its activity under these 
diverse forms, one and the same force exerting itself — 
whether as thinking, feeling, or acting — whether as re- 
membering, imagining, judging, perceiving, reasoning, lov- 
ing, fearing, hating, desiring, choosing. And while we may 



30 



INTRODUCTION 



designate these as so many faculties of the mind, we aie not 
to conceive of them as so many constituent parts of a com< 
plex whole, which, taken together, compose this mysterious 
entity called the mmd, as the different limbs and organs ot 
the physical fi^ame compose the structure called the body. 
Such is not the nature of the mind, nor of its faculties. 

The Question before us. — In inquiring, then, what are 
the faculties of the mind, we have simply to inquire what 
are the distinct modes of its activity, what states and oper- 
ations of the mind so far resemble each other as to admit of 
being classed together under the same general description 
and name. Our work, thus understood, becomes in reality 
a very simple one. 

The more important Distinctions to be first ascertained 
— What, then, are the clearly distinct modes of mental ac- 
tivity? -And first let us endeavor to ascertain the widei 
and more important distinctions. We shall find that, innu- 
merable as the forms of mental activity may at first sight 
appear, they are all capable of being reduced to a few gen- 
eral and comprehensive classes. 

The first Form of m^ental Activity, — I sit at my table. 
Books are before me. I open a volume, and peruse its pages. 
My mind is occupied, its activity is awakened ; the thoughts 
of the author are transferred to my mind, and engage my 
thoughts. Here, then, is one form of mental activity. This 
one thing I can do ; this one power I have — the faculty of 
thought. 

The second Form, — But not this alone : I am presently 
conscious of something beside simple thought. The writer, 
whoso pages I peruse, interests me, excites me ; I am 
amused by his wit, moved by his eloquence, affected by his 
pathos ; I become indignant at the scenes and characters 
wliich he portrays, or, on the contrary, they command my 
admiration. All this by turns passes over me as the fitful 
shadows play upon the waters, coming and going with the 
changing cloud. This is not pure thought. It is thought. 



INTRODUCTION. S^ 

acoompanied with another and quite distinct element, that 
\^y feeling. This power also I have ; — I can feel. 

A third Form, — And not this alone. The process does 
not end here. Thought and feeling lead to action. I re- 
solve what to do. I lay down my book, and go forth to 
perform some act prompted by the emotion awakened 
within me. This power also I have ; — the faculty of volun- 
tary action, or voHtion. 

These three Forms comprehensive, — Here, then, are three 
grand divisions or forms of mental activity — thought, feei- 
ng, volition. These powers we are constantly exerting. 
Every moment of my intelligent existence I am exercising 
one or another, or all of these faculties. And, what ia 
more, of all the forms of mental activity, there is not one 
which does not fall under one or another of these three 
divisions — thought — feeling — volition. Every possible 
mental operation may be reduced to one of these three 
things. 

We have, then, these grand departments or modes of 
mental activity, comprehensive of all others : Intellect, or 
the faculty of simple thought ; Sensibility, or the faculty of 
feehng ; Will, or the faculty of voluntary action. 

Under these leading powers are comprehended subordi- 
nate modes of mental activity, known as faculties of the In- 
tellect, or of the Sensibility, or of the Will. 

We have at present to do only with those of the Intellect, 

§ XL — Analysis op Intellectual Powers. 

• 

Sense-perception, — Observing closely the intellectual op- 
erations of the mind, we find a large class of them relating 
to objects within the sphere of sense, external objects, as 
perceived by the senses. The mind, through the medium 
of sense, takes direct cognizance of these objects. This 
class of operations we may call Sense-perception, and the 



32 INTRODUCTION. 

facuUy thus employed, in distinction from other leading 
divisions of the intellectual powers, we may call Sense^ or 
tee Presentative faculty. Its distinctive office is to present 
to the mind, through the senses, objects external, sensible, 
as now and here present. 

Uie Representative Poicer. — But the mind not only rtj- 
(3eives impressions of external objects, as present, and acting 
on the organs of sense ; it has also the faculty of conceiving 
of them in their absence^ and representing them to itself 
This faculty, as distinguished from tbe receptive power, or 
Bense, we may call the Representative Power, 

Mental Reproduction^ and mental Recognition as distin- 
guished, — This power operates in various forms. There 
may be the simple representation of the absent object, with- 
out reference to the act of former perception, as when I 
think of the Strasburg tower, without recalling any partic- 
ular instance of its perception. Or there may be such re- 
calling of the former act and instance of perception. The 
thought of the tower, as it presents itself to my mind, 
may stand connected definitely with the idea of the time, 
and place, and attending circumstances in which, on some 
occasion, I saw that object. It is then recognized as the ob- 
ject which was seen at such or such a time. The former is 
an instance of mental reproditction simply — the latter, of 
mental recognition. We have in common language but one 
Dame for the two — although the term more strictly belongs 
only to the latter — and that is. Memory. 

Representation of the Ideal in distinction from the 
Actual, — Agam, unlike either of these, there may be a con- 
ception and representation of the object, not at all as it is in 
reality, and as it was perceived, but varied in essential par- 
ticulars, to suit our own taste and fancy — a tower not of 
ordinary stone, but of some rare and costly marble — not of 
ordinary height, but reaching to the skies, etc., etc. In the 
former cases we conceived only of the actual^ now of the 
ideal. This faculty is called Imagination. Both are form* 



INTRODUCTION. 38 

of the representative power, not presenting^ but only repte 
senting objects. 

Conception of the Abstract, — The Discursive or Heflectivt 
Power, — In the cases thus far described we have conceived 
of some sensible object, considered in and by itself, capable 
of being represented to thought. We may, however, con 
ceive not of an object in itself considered, but of the proj^er 
ties and relations of objects in the abstract. Thus we com 
pare and class together those objects which we perceive to 
possess certain properties in common ; as books bound in 
cloth, or in leather, octavos, or duodecimos. In so doing 
we exercise the faculty oi generalization^ which involves com» 
parison, and also what is usually termed abstraction. Or 
we may reverse the process, and instead of classing together 
objects possessing certain elements in common, we may 
analyze a complex idea, or a comprehensive term, in order 
to derive from it whatever is specifically included in it. 
Thus trom the general proposition, '' All men are mortal," 
inasmuch as the term '' all men " includes Socrates, I infer 
that Socrates is mortal. The process last named is called 
reasoning. 

In either case, both in the synthetic and the analytic 
process now described, we are dealing not with the concrete 
but the abstract. The properties and relations of things, 
rather than things themselves, are the objects of our thoughts. 
Still they are the properties and relations primarily of se?isi' 
ble objects^ and of these objects as conceived^ and not as pre- 
sented to sense. To distinguish this class of conceptions 
from those previously considered, and also from that pres* 
ently- to be noticed, we may designate this power of the 
mind as the Discursive or Reflective Power. Its results are 
notions of the understanding rather than impressions of 
Bense, or ideas of reason. 

Conceptions not furnished by Sense, — The Intuitive 
Power, — We have considered thus far those intellectual 
operations whicl: fall within three leading departments of 

2* 



34 INTKODUCTION. 

meiital activity; — the Presentative, Repruseutativt, and 
Discursive Powers. These operations all have reference 
directly or indirectly to sensible objects. The first regards 
them 2is present/ the second represents them as absent ; the 
thii'd considers their properties and relations in the ab- 
stract. 

But the mind has also the faculty of formmg ideas and 
ocnceptions not furnished by the senses. It departs from 
the sphere of sense, and deals with the simper-sensible, with 
those primary ideas and first principles presupposed in ail 
knowledge of the sensible. Such are the ideas of time, 
space, cause, the right, the beautiful. These are suggested 
by the objects of sense, but not directly derived from nor 
given by those objects. They are ideas of reason^ rather than 
notions of understanding. They are awakened in the mind 
on occasions of sensible perception, but not conveyed to the 
mind through the senses, as in perception, nor directly de- 
rived from the object as in the case of the representative 
and discursive powers. This faculty we may call the Origin- 
ative or Intuitive Power, in distinction from those previously 
considered. 

Summary of leading Divislo7is,- — We have then four 
grand divisions of intellectual operations, under which the 
several specific faculties arrange themselves ; viz., the Pi e- 
sentative, the Representative, the Discursive, and the Origin- 
ative or Intuitive faculty. The first has to do with sensible 
objects, as present; the second has to do with the same class 
of objects as absent ; the third deals with their abstract 
properties and relations ; and the fourth has to do not with 
the sensible, in any form, but with the super-sensible, • 

I believe the faculties of the intellect, in pure thinking, 
may all be reduced to those forms now specified, undei 
these four leadinsj divisions 



INTRODUCTION. 35 

Results of the preceding analysis in a tabulah 

*hOBM: 

POWERS OF THE INTELLECT. 
L Presentatite, lerceptiorL 

VL. BSPEESEMATI7E, \ ^- "^^ ^"^^ ^°*"«''' ' ' ' ^^""V- 

( 2. Of tlie Ideal, . . Imagination. 

in. Eeplective, \ ^- Syiithetic, Generalization, 

( 2. Analytic, .... Reasoning. 
W, Intuitiyb, Original Concepiic/.\ 

g in. — Hisa:oRiOAL Sketch — Various Divisions of the Mental 

Faculties. 

The earlier Division. — The general division of the pow- 
ers of the mind, for a long time prevalent among the earlier 
modern philosophers, was into two chief departments, 
known under different names, but including under the one 
what we now term the intellect, under the other what we 
designate as the sensibilities and the will, which were not 
then, as now, distinguished from each other in the general 
division, but thrown into one department. Under the first 
of these departments, they included the thinking and reason- 
ing powers, the strictly intellectual part of our nature ; 
under the second, whatever brings the mind into action — 
the impelling and controlling power or principle — the af- 
fections, emotions, desires, volitions, etc. The names given 
to these two divisions varied with different writers, but the 
difference was chiefly in the name, the principle of division 
being the same. By some authors they were designated as 
the contemplative and the active powers, by others cogniU 
ive and motive. The latter was the nomenclature proposed 
by Hobbes. Others again adopted the terms understanding 
and will, by which to mark the two divisions ; Locke, Reid, 
some of the French philosophers, and, in our own country, 
Edwards, followed this division, Stewart designates them, 
the one class as the intellectual^ and the other as the active 



86 INTRODUCTION. 

and moral powers. Brown objects to this phraseolcgy ^n 
the ground that the intellectual powers are no less active 
than the other. He divides the mental powers or states 
primarily into what he calls external and internal affections 
of the mind, comprehending under the former all those 
mental states which are immediately preceded by and con- 
nected with the presence of some external object ; under 
the latter, those states which are not thus immediately pre- 
ceded. The latter class he divides into intellectual states 
and emotions, a division corresponding essentially to those 
of the authors previously mentioned, the emotions of Brown 
comprehending essentially the powers which others had 
termed motive, or active and moral. 

JPrevale7ice of this Method, — This twofold division of the 
mental powers, under different names, as now stated, has 
been the one generally prevalent until a comparatively re- 
cent date. It may doubtless be traced, as Sir William 
Hamilton suggests, to a distinction made by Aristotle, into 
cognitive and appetent powers. 

The more recent Method, — The threefold division of the 
mental faculties very early came into use among philosoph 
ical and theological writers in this country, and is now very 
generally adopted by the more recent European writers ol 
note, especially in France and Germany. According to this 
division the various affections and emotions constitute a de- 
partment by themselves, distinct from the will or the volun- 
tary principle. There are many reasons for such a dia- 
tinction ; they have been well stated by Professor Uj)ham 
Cousin adopts and defends the threefold division, and pre 
viously still, Kant, in Germany, had distinguished the nienta 
powers under the leading divisions of intelligence, senaibil 
ity, and desiie. 



MENTAL PHILOSOPHY. 



DIVISION FIRST. 



THE INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES. 



PRELIMINARY TOPICS. 



CHAPTER I. 

CONSCIOUSNESS. 



Gej^eral Statement, — Before proceeding to investigate the 
several specific faculties of the intellect, as already classified, 
there are certain preliminary topics to be considered, certain 
mental phenomena, or mental states, involved more or less 
ftilly in all mental activity, and on that account hardly to be 
classed as specific faculties, yet requiring distinct considera- 
tion. Such are the mental states vrhich we denominate as 
consciousness and attention. 

Definitions, — Consciousness is defined by Webster as 
the knowledge of sensations and mental operations, or of 
what passes in our own minds ; by Wayland, as that condi- 
tion of the mind in which it is cognizant of its own opera- 
tions ; by Cousin, as that function of the intelligence which 
gives us information of every thing which takes place in the 
mterior of our minds ; by Dr. Henry, translator of Cousin, 
OS the being aware of the phenomena of the mind — of that 
which is present to the mind ; by Professor Tappan, as the 
necessary knowledge which the mind has of its own opera* 
eions. These general definitions substantially agree. The 
mind is aware of its own operations, its sensations, percep- 
tions, emotions, choices, etc., and the state or act of being 
thus cognizant of its own phenomena we designate by the 
general term ConsQioimiess, 



to CONSCIOUSNESS. 

Heasons for regarding Consciousness as not a distinct 
Faculty, — • Is this, however, a distinci faculty of the mind ? 
The jnind, it is said, is always cognizant of its own opera- 
tions : when it perceives, it is conscious of perceiving ; when 
it reasons, it is conscious of reasoning ; when it feels, it is 
conscious of feeling ; and not to be conscious of any par- 
ticular mental act, is not to perform that act. To have a 
pensation, and to be conscious of that sensation, it is said, 
are not two things, but one and the same, the difference 
being only in name. A perception is indivisible, cannot be 
analyzed into a fact, and the consciousness of the fact, for 
the perception is an act of knowing, and does not take place 
if it be not known to take place. This is the view taken 
by Sir William Hamilton, Professor Bowen, and others of 
high authority. It was maintained by Dr. Brown with 
much force as an objection to the doctrine of Reid, who 
had recognized consciousness as a distinct faculty. 

Reasons for the opposite View, — On the other hand, the 
claims of this form of mental activity to be regarded as a 
faculty of the mind, distinct from and coordinate with the 
other mental powers, are admitted and maintained by writ- 
ers of authority, among whom are Dr. Wayland and Presi- 
dent Mahan. They maintain that the office of consciousness 
being to give us knowledge of our own mental states, and 
this function being quite distinct from that of any other 
mental faculty, the capacity or power of performing thia 
function deserves to be regarded as itself a faculty of the 
mind. It is maintained also by Dr. Wayland that conscious- 
ness does not necessarily invariably accompany all mental 
action, but that there may be, and are, acts of which we are 
not at the time conscious. 

Instances in proof of this Position. — In support of this 
position he refers to certain cases as instances of unconscious 
perception ; as when, for example, a clock strikes within a 
few feet of us, while we are busily engaged, and we do not 
notice it, or know that it has struck, yet if questioned 



CONSCIOUSNESS. 41 

atlerward, are conscious of an impression that we have 
heard it ; as when also while reading aloud to another per 
son, some thought arrests our attention, and yet by a sort 
of mechanical process, we continue the reading, our mind, 
meanwhile, wholly occupied with another subject, until pres- 
ently we are startled to find that we have not the remotest 
conception of what we have just been reading ; yet we 
read every word correctly, and must, it would seem, have 
perceived every word and letter. He refers also to the 
case of the short-hand writer to the House of Lords in 
England, who, on a certain occasion, while engaged in tak- 
mg the depositions of witnesses in an important case, after 
many hours of continued exertion and fatigue, fell, for a few 
moments, into a state of entire unconsciousness, yet kept on 
writing down, and that with perfect accuracy, the deposi- 
tions of the witness. Of the last few lines, when he came 
to read them, he had no recollection whatever, yet they 
were written as legibly and accurately as the rest. From 
these and similar cases it is inferred that there may be 
mental activity of which we have at the time no conscious- 
ness. 

The Evidence examined, — With regard to the casecj \\o^ 
cited, it seems to me that they do not fully establish the 
point in question. For in the first place, it may be doubted 
whether they really involve any mental activity — whether 
they are properly mental acts, and not merely mechanical or 
automatic. It is well known that many processes which 
ordinarily require more or less attention may, when they 
have become perfectly familiar, be carried on for a time 
almost without thought. The senses, so far as they are re- 
quired to act at all, seem in such cases to act mechanically 
or automatically, somewhat as a wheel when once set in mo- 
tion continues for a time to revolve by its own momentum, 
after the propelling force is withdrawn. The mental activity 
exerted in such cases, if there be any, is so very slight as to 
escape attention, and we are unconscious of it simply b6> 



42 CONSCIOUS iN ESS. 

cau^e th ere was little or nothing to be conscious of. Wfc 
have an illustration of this in the act of walking, while busily 
engaged in conversation with a friend, or in our own medi- 
tations. We are not conscious of any mental act preceding 
or directing each step and movement of the limbs, but hav 
ing at the outset decided what direction to take, the mind 
gives itself to other matters, while the process of walking 
go^s on by a sort of mechanical impulse, until presently 
something occurs to arrest our attention and direct it to the 
physical movement in which we are engaged. The muscular 
contractions tend to follow each other in a certain regular 
succession ; a certain law of association seems to govern their 
movements, as is seen in the rapid motions of the pianist 
the flute player, the type distributor, and in many similar 
cases ; and so long as the regular succession, and accustomed 
order of movement, is undisturbed, the process goes on with 
little or no interference of the intellectual principle. In 
such cases the act can hardly be said to involve mental 
activity. 

A further Question. — But aside from this, even admitting 
that the acts under consideration are such as to involve men- 
tal activity, what evidence is there, it may still be asked, 
that there was at the moment no consciousness of that ac- 
tivity ? That there was subsequently no consciousness of it, 
does not make it certain that there was none at the time. 
The subsequent consciousness of an act is neither more nor 
less than memory, and is not properly consciousness at all. 
Consciousness takes cognizance, properly speaking, only of 
the present, not of the past. The absence of subsequent 
consciousness is simply absence of memory, and this may be 
accounted for in other ways than by supposing a total ab 
sence of consciousness in the first instance. Whatever men- 
tal activity was really exerted by the short-hand reporter in 
the case referred to, he was, doubtless, conscious of exerting 
ai the time, but it may have been so slight, and the mind so 
little impressed by it, in the state of physical weariness and 



CONSCIOUSNESS. 43 

prostration, that it was not remembered a moment after- 
v\' ard. We remember not every thing tbat occurs, but only 
that to which we attend, and which makes some impression 
upon us. ^ 

The true JExplanation. — In the other cases referred to, 
the explanation now given is still more evidently the ^rne 
one. What is called an absence of consciousness is simply 
an absence of attention at the time, and consequently of 
memory afterward. The person who is reading aloud, in 
the case supposed, is mentally occupied with something else 
than the sentiments of the author, is not attending, in a word, 
to what he is reading, and hence does not, a moment after, 
remember what it was that he read. So of the striking of the 
clock. The sound fell upon the ear, the auditory nerve per 
formed its office, the usual change, whatever it may be, wab 
produced in the brain, but the process of hearing went no 
further; either no mental activity was awakened by that 
sound, or, if any, but the slightest, for the mind was other- 
wise occupied, in a word, did not attend to the summons of 
the messenger that waited at the portal, and hence there 
was no subsequent remembrance of the message, or at most 
a vague impression that something of the kind was heard. 

On the whole, it does not appear from the cases cited, 
that mental activity is ever, at the moment of its exertion, 
unaccompanied with consciousness. 

Summary of the Argument, — I hesitate then to assign 
consciousness a place among the faculties of the mind, aa 
iistinct from and coordinate with them, for the following 
reasons : 

1. It seems to me to be involved in all mental acts. We 
sannot, as it has been already said, suppose an act of per- 
ception, for example, or of sensation, without the conscious- 
ness of that perception or sensation. Whatever the mind 
does, it knows that it does, and the knowing is involved ia 
and given along with the doing. Not to know that I sea 
a book, or hear a sound, is in reality not to see and not to 



U CONSCIOUSNESS 

hear it. Not to know that I have a sensation is not to have 
it. But wliat is involved in all mental action cannot be set 
down by itself as a specific mental act. This were much the 
same as to reckon the whole among the parts. 

2. Consciousness, while involved in, cannot be, eithei 
psychologically or chronologically, distinguished from the 
mental acts which it accompanies. The act and the con- 
sciousness of the act are inseparable in time, and they are 
incapable of being distinguished as distinct states of mind 
We cannot break up the sensation or perception into a fact, 
and the consciousness of that fact. Logically we may dis- 
tinguish them as different objects of thought and attention, 
Jbut not psychologically as distinct acts of mind. 

3. Consciousness is not under the control of the will, and 
is not therefore a faculty of the mind. It is not a power of 
doing something, but an inseparable concomitant of all 
doing. What has been termed by some writers voluntary 
consciousness, or reflection^ is simply attention directed to 
our own mental acts. 

Distinction of Consciousness and Self-ConsciousTzess. — 
Others again distinguish between consciousness and self- 
consciousness ; but all consciousness, properly so cailed, in- 
volves the idea of self, or the subjective element. To know 
chat I have a sensation, is virtually to know myself as hav- 
ing it. 

Cases of abnormal or suspended Conscious7iess, —In 
eertain disordered and abnormal states of the nervous or* 
ganism, the knowledge of what has transpired previously to 
that state seems to be lost ; and then again, on passing out 
of that condition into the normal one, all knowledge of what 
took place while in the abnormal state is wanting. Instances 
are on record waere persons have alternated in this manner 
from one to the other condition, carrying on, as it were, by 
turns, two separate and independent lines of mental activity. 
An instance of this nature is related by Dr. Wayland. It 
lias been usual to spp^k of these as instances of disordered 



CONSCIOUSNESS. 46 

or suspended consciousness. Strictly speaking, however, it 
*s not consciousness but memory that is in such cases dis- 
ordered. It is not the knowledge of the present, but of the 
past^ that is disturbed and deficient. While the abnormal 
state continues, the individual is conscious of what transpires 
in that state. When it ceases, the patient wakes as from a 
reverie or dream, and retains no recollection of any thing 
that took place during its continuance. It is the memory 
that fails, and not the consciousness. We are never con 
8cious of the past. 

Objects oj^ Co7iscioiisness, — 1. Consciousness deals onlj 
with reality. We are conscious only of that which is, not 
of that which may be. The poet is conscious indeed of his 
dction, the builder of air-castles is conscious of his reverie, 
but the fiction and the reverie, regarded as mental acts, are 
^ealities^ and it is only as mental acts that they are objects 
of consciousness. • 

2. Not every thing real is an object of consciousness, but 
only that which is present and in immediate relation to us. 
The destruction of Pompeii, and the existence of an Antarctic 
continent are realities, but not objects of my consciousness. 

3. Primarily and directly we are conscious of our own 
mental states and operations ; of whatever passes over the 
field of our mental vision, our thoughts, feelings, actions, 
physical sensations, moral sentiments and purposes : me- 
diately and indirectly we are conscious of whatever, througi^ 
the medium of sense, comes into direct relation to us. For 
instance, when I put forth my hand and it strikes tins ta])le, 
I am conscious not only of the movement, and the effort to 
move, but of the sensation of resistance also, and indirectly 
I may be said to be conscious not of the resistance only, but 
of something — to wit, the table — as resisting. This some- 
ching I know, as really as I know the sensation and the tact 
of resistance. To this immediate perception of the external 
world in direct relation to our physical organism, Sir W. 
Hamilton would extend the sphere of connciousness Usual 



46 ATTENTION". 

ly, however, the t^rm has been employed in a more rfv 
stricted sense — to denote the knowledge of what passes 
withm, rather than of what lies without the mind itself. 



CHAPTER II. 

ATTENTION. 

Oeneral Chara\iter of this Power, — It has not been usi>al 
to treat of Attention as one of the distinct faculties of tiiG 
mind. It is doubtless a power which the mind possesses, 
but like the power of conception, or more generally the 
power of thought and mental apprehension, it is involved in 
and underlies the exercise of all the specific mental faculties. 
Nor is it, hke consciousness, confined to a distinct depart- 
ment of knowledge, viz., the knowledge of our own menta 
states. It is subsidiary to the other mental powers, rathei 
than a faculty of original and independent knowledge. It 
originates nothing — teaches nothing — puts us in possession 
of no new truth — has no distinct field and province of it9 
own. And yet without it other faculties would be of littlr 
avail. 

Definitions, — If it were necessary to define a term s^ 
well understood, we might describe it as the power whic> 
the mind has of directing its thoughts, purposely and volun* 
tarily, to some one object, to the exclusion of others. It i^ 
described by Dr. Wayland as a sort of voluntary consciougi 
ness, a condition of mind in which our consciousness is ex 
cited and directed by an act of the will. He speaks also of 
an involuntary attention, a state of mind in which our 
thoughts, without efibrt or purpose of our own, are en- 
grossed by objects of an exciting nature. It may be ques- 
tioned, perhaps, whether this is properly attention. Onl v 
m 80 far as attention is a voluntary act is it properly a 



ATTENTION. 47 

power of tlie mind, and only in so far does it differ from the 
simple activity of thought, or of consciousness. The lattoi 
IS always involuntary, and in this it differs from attention. 

Instances in Illustration, — It can hardly be necessary to 
illustrate Ly example the nature of a faculty so constantly in 
exercise. Every one perceives, for instance, the difference; 
between the careless perusal of an author — the eye passing 
listlessly over the pages, and the mind receiving little or no 
impression from its statements — and the reading of the 
same volume with fixed and carefal attention, every wor<] 
observed, every sentiment weighed, and the whole mental 
energy directed to the subject in hand. We pass, in the 
streets of a crowded and busy city, many persons whom w« 
do not stop to observe, and of whose appearance we could 
afterward give no account whatever. Presently, some one 
in the crowd attracts our notice. We observe his appear- 
ance, we watch his movements, we notice his peculiarities 
of dress, gait, manners, etc., and are able afterward to de- 
scribe them with some degree of minuteness. In the for- 
mer case we perceive, but do not attend. In the latter, we 
attend, in order to perceive. 

Sometimes the sole Occupation, — Attention seems to be 
at times the sole occupation of the mind for the moment, as 
when we have heard some sound that attracts our notice, 
and are listening for its repetition. In this case the other 
faculties are for the time held in suspense, and we are, as we 
say, all attention. The posture naturally assumed in such a 
case is that indicated by the etymology of the word, and 
may have suggested its use to designate this faculty, viz.. 
attention — ad-tendo — a bending to^ a stretching toward^ tht 
object of interest. 

Analysis of the mental Process in Atte7ition, — If we 
closely analyze the process of our minds in the exercise of 
this y)ower, we shall find, I think, that it consists chiefly in 
this — the arresting and detaining the thoughts, excluding 
thus the exercise o^ other forms of mental activity, in con 



48 ATTEISTION. 

sequence of which the mind is left free to direct it& wiiole 
energy to the one object in view. The process may be com 
pared to the operation of the detent in machinery, which 
checks the wheels that are in rapid motion, and gives oppor- 
tunity for any desired change ; while it may be compared, 
as regards the result of its action, to the helm that directs 
the motion of the ship, now this way, now that, as the 
helmsman wills. 

Objects of Attention. — The objects of attention are of 
sourse as various as the objects of thought. Like con- 
sciousness, it may confine itself to our own mental states ; 
and, unlike consciousness, it may comprehend also the en- 
tire range of objective reality. In the former case it is 
more commonly designated by the term reflection, in the 
latter, observation. 

Importajice of Habits of Attention. — -The importance of 
nabits of attention, of the due exercise and development of 
this faculty of the mind, is too obvious to require special 
comment. The power of controlling one's ow^n mental 
activity, of directing it at will into whatever channeb the 
occasion may demand, of excluding for this purpose all other 
and irrelevant ideas, and concentrating the energies of the 
mind on the one object of thought before it, is a power of 
the highest value, an attainment worth any effort, and which^ 
in the different degrees in which it is possessed, goes far to 
ciiake the difference between one mind and another in the 
realm of thought and intellectual greatness. While the 
attention is divided and the mind distracted among a 
variety of objects, it can apprehend nothing clearly and 
definitely ; the rays are not brought to a focus^ and the 
aiental eye, instead of a clear and well-defined image, per- 
ceives nothing but a shadowy and confused outline. The 
mind while in this state acts to little purpose. It is shorn 
of its strength. 

The power ol commanding the attention and concentrat- 
'ng the mental energy upon a given object, is, however, ? 



ATTENTION. 49 

power not easily acquired nor always f ossessed. The diffi 
culty of the attainment is hardly less than its importance. 
It can be made only by earnest effort, resolute purpose, dili- 
gent culture and training. There must be strength of will 
to take command of the mental faculties, and make them 
subservient to its purpose. There must be determination 
to succeed, and a wise discipline and exercise of the mind 
with reference to the end in view. This faculty, like every 
other, requires education in order to its due development. 

Whether certain Acts are performed without any Degree 
of Attention, — It is a question somewhat discussed among 
philosophers, whether those acts which from habit we have 
learned to perform with great facility, and, as we say, al- 
most without thinking, are strictly voluntary ; whether 
*^^hey do or do not involve an exercise of attention. Every 
one is aware of the facility acquired by practice m many 
manual and mechanical operations, as well as in those more 
properly intellectual. A musician sits at his instrument, 
scarcely conscious of what he is doing, his attention ab- 
sorbed, it may be, with some engrossing topic of thought or 
conversation, while his fingers wander ad libitum among 
the keys and strike the notes of some familiar tune. Is 
there in such a case a special act of volition and attention 
preceding each movement of the fingers as tbey glide over 
the keys? And in more rapid playing, even when the atten- 
tion is in general directed to the act performed, z. e., the exe- 
cution of the piece, is there still a special act of attention 
to the production of each note as they follow each other 
with almost inconceivable rapidity ? Dr. Stahl, Dr. Reid, 
and others, especially many able physiologists, have an 
swered this question in the negative, pronouncing the acts 
in question to be merely automatic and mechanical, and not 
properly involving any activity of mind. The raind, they 
would say, forms the general purpose to execute the given 
piece, but the particular movements and muse alar contrac- 
tions requisite to produce the individual notes, are, for the 

3 



50 ATTENTION. 

most part, involuntary, the result of habit, not of special ai 
tention or volition. 

The opposite View, — On the other hand, Mr. Stewart 
maintains that all such acts, however easily and rapidly per- 
formed, do involve mental activity, some degree of attention^ 
some special voUtion to produce them, although we may not 
be able to recollect those volitions afterward. The different 
steps of the process are, by the association of ideas, so con- 
nected, that they present themselves successively to the 
mmd without any effort to recall them, without any hesita- 
tion or reflection on our part, and with a rapidity propor- 
tioned to our experience. The attention and the volition 
are instantaneous, and therefore not subsequently recol- 
lected. Still, he would say, the fact that we do not recol- 
lect them is no proof that we did not exercise them. The 
musician can, at will, perform the piece so slowly, as to be 
able to observe and recall the special act of attention to 
each note, and of volition to produce it. The difference in 
the two cases lies in the rapidity of the movement, not in 
the nature of the operation. 

Objection to this View, — The only objection to this view, 
of much weight, is the extreme rapidity of mental action, 
which this view supposes. An accomplished speaker v/il) 
pronounce, it is said, from two to four hundred words, or 
from one to two thousand letters m a minute, and each let 
ter requires a distinct contraction of the muscles, many of 
them, indeed, several contractions. Shall we suppose then 
so many thousand acts of attention and volition m a 
minute ? 

Reply to this Objection. — To this it may be replied tliat 
the very objection carries with it its own answer, since if 
it be true that the muscles of the body move with such won- 
dei ful rapidity, it is surely not incredible that the mind should 
be at least equally rapid m its movements with the body 
To show that both mind and body often do act with great 
rapi'Jity, Mr, Stewart cites the case of the equilibrist, whc 



ATTENTION. 51 

balances himself on the slack rope, and at the same time 
balances a number of rods or balls upon his chin, his posi- 
tion every instant changing, according to the accidental and 
ever- varying motions of the several objects whose equilib- 
rium he is to preserve, which motions he must therefore 
constantly and closely watch. Now to do this, the closest 
attention, both of the eye and of the mind, to each of these 
rustantaneous movements, is absolutely necessary, since the 
movements do not follow each other in any regular order, as 
do the notes of the musician, and cannot, therefore, by any as- 
sociation of ideas, be linked together, or laid up in the mind. 

The Question undecided. — The question is a curious one* 
and with the arguments on either side, as now presented, I 
leave it to the reader's individual judgment and decision. 
Mr. Stewart is doubtless correct as to the rapidity of mental 
and muscular action. At the same time it seems to me thefre 
are actions, whatever may be true in the cases supposed, that 
are purely automatic and mechanical. 

Whether we attend to m^ore than one thing at once. — 
Analogous to the question already discussed, is the inquiry 
whether the mind ever attends or can attend to more than one 
thing at one and the same time ; as when I read an author, 
my attention meanwhile being directed to some other ob- 
ject than the train of thought presented by the page before 
me, so that at the end of a paragraph or a chapter I find 
that I have no idea of what I have been reading, and yet I 
have followed with the eye, and perhaps pronounced aloud. 
every word and line of the entire passage. To do this must 
have required some attention. Have I then the power of 
attending to two things at once ? So, when the musician 
carelessly strikes up a familiar air while engaged in ani- 
mated conversation, and when the equilibrist balances both 
his own body upon the rope, and also a number of bodies upon 
different parts of his body, each movement of each requiring 
constant and instant attention, the same question arises. 

Opinion of Mr, Stetvart, — Mr. Stewart, in accordance 



52 ATTENTION' 

With the view already expressed of the rapiditj of themmd^ 
action, maintains that we do not under any circumstances 
attend at one and the same time to two objects of thought, 
but that the mind passes with such rapidity from one to 
another object in the cases supposed, that we are uncon- 
scious of the transition, and seem to ourselves to be attend- 
ing to both objects at once. 

Illustration of this View. — An illustration of this we find 
in the case of vision. Only one point of the surface of any 
external object is at any one instant in the direct hne of 
vision, yet so rapidly does the eye pass from point to point, 
that we seem to perceive at a glance the whole surface. 

Sow it is possible to compare different Objects. — It may 
be asked. How is it that we are able to compare one object 
with another, if we are unable to bring both before the 
mind at once ? If, while I am thinking of A, I have no 
longer any thought whatever of B, how is it possible ever 
to bring together A and B before the mind so as to compare 
them ? 

The answer I conceive to be this, that the mind passes 
with such rapidity from the one to the other object, as to 
produce the same effect that would be produced were both 
objects actually before it at the same instant. The transi- 
tion is not usually a matter of consciousness ; yet if any one 
will observe closely the action of his own mind in the exer- 
cise of comparison, he will detect the passing of his thoughts 
back and forth from one object to the other many times 
before the conclusion is reached, and the comparison is conv 



CHAPTER IIL 

CONCEPTION. 

Character ^f this Power, — This term has been employed 
» various senses by aifferent writers. It does not denote 
properly a distinct faculty oi t^ie mind. I conceive of a 
thing when I make it a distinct oiject of thought, when I 
apprehend it, when I construe i\. vo myself as a possible 
thing, and as being thus and thus. ITiis form of mental 
activity enters more or less into all oai mental operations ; 
it is involved in perception, memory, imd|i;mation, abstrac- 
tion, judgment, reasoning, etc. For this reitson it is not to 
be ranked as one of, and correlate with, these several specific 
faculties. Ln^e the power of thought, and hardiy even more 
limited than that, it underlies all the special faculties, and is 
essential to them all. Such at least is the ordinal y accepta- 
tion of the term ; and when we employ it to denote some 
specific form of mental activity, we employ it in a sense 
aside from its usual and established meaning. 

Objects of Conception, — I conceive of an absent object 
of sight, as, e, g,^ the appearance of an absent friend, or of a 
foreign city, of the march of an army, or the eruption of a 
volcano. I conceive also of a mathematical truth, or a 
problem in astronomy. My conceptions are not hmited to 
former perceptions or sensations, nor even to objects of 
sensible perception. They are not limited to material and 
sensible objects. They embrace the past and the future, the 
actual and the ideal, the sensible and the super-sensible. 

Conceptions neither true nor false, — Our conceptions are 
neither true nor false, in themselves considered ; they be- 
come so only when attended with some exercise of judg- 
ment or of belief. We conceive of a mountain of gold or of 



54 CONCEPTION. 

glass, and this simple conception has nothing to do with 
truth or error When we conceive of it, however, as ac- 
tually existing, and in this or that place, or when we simply 
judge that such a mountain is somewhere to be found, then 
such judgment or belief is either true or false ; but it is no 
onger simple conception. 

Not always Possibilities / nor possible Things always 
conceivable. — Our conceptions are not always possibilities. 
We can conceive of some things not within the limits of possi- 
biUty. On the other hand, not every thing possible even is 
conceivable. Existence without beginning or end is possible, 
but it is not in the power of the human mind, strictly speak 
ing, to conceive of such a thing. I know that Deity thus 
exists. I understand what is meant by such a proposition, 
and I believe it. But I cannot construe it to myself as a 
definite intellection, an apprehension, as I can conceive of the 
existence of a city or a continent, or of the truth of a mathe- 
matical proposition. 

The same may be said of the ideas of the infinite and the 
absolute. They are not properly within the limits of 
thought, of apprehension, to the human mind. Thought in 
its very nature imposes a limitation on the object which is 
thought of— fathoms it — passes around it with its measur- 
ing line — apprehends it : only so far as this is done is the 
thing actually thought ; only so far as it can be done is the 
thing really thinkable. But the infinite, the unconditioned, 
the absolute, in their very nature unlimited, cannot be shut 
up thus within the narrow lines of human thought. Thej 
are inconceivable. They are not, however, contradictory to 
thought. They may be true ; they are true and real, though 
we cannot properly conceive tnem. 

The Inconceivable becomes Impossible^ when. — Not every 
thing then which is inconceivable is impossible, nor, on the 
other hand, is every thing which is impossible inconceivable. 
The inconcei\ab^e is impossible, at least it can be known to 



CONCtPTION. 55 

be so, only when it is either self-contradictory — as that a 
thing should be and not be at the same time — that a part 
IS equal to the whole, etc. ; or when it is contradictory of 
the laws cf thought, as that two straight lines should enclose 
a space — • that an event may occur without a cause — that 
Bpace is not necessary to the existence of matter, or time to 
the succession of events. These things are imthinkable 
but they are more than that, contradictory of the established 
laws of thought ; and they are impossible, because thus con- 
tradictory, and not merely because inconceivable. It is 
hardly true, as is sometimes affirmed, and as Dr. Wayland 
has stated, that our conceptions are the limits of possi- 
bility. 

Mr, Stewards use of the term Conception, — Mr. Stewart 
has employed the term Conception in a somewhat peculiar 
manner, and has assigned it a definite place among the fac- 
ulties of the mind. He uses it to denote " that power of 
the mind which enables it to form a notion of an absent ob- 
ject of perception, or of a sensation which we have formerly 
felt." It is the office of this faculty " to present us with an 
exact transcript of what we have felt or perceived." In 
this respect it differs from imagination, which gives not an 
exact transcript, but one more or less altered or modified, 
combining our conceptions so as to form new results. It 
differs from memory in that it involves no idea of time, no 
recognition of the thing conceived, as a thing formerly per 
ceived. 

Objection to this use, — This use of the term is, on some 
accounts, objectionable. It is certainly not the ordinary 
sense of the word, but a departure from established usage 
It IS an arbitrary limitation of a word to denote a part only 
instead of the whole of that which it properly signifies 
There is no reason, in the nature of the case, why the 
notion we form of an absent object of perception, or ot a 
sensation, should be called a conception, rather than oui 



;>6 CONCEPTION. 

notion of an abstract truth, a proposition in morals, or u 
mathematical problem. I am not aware that any special 
importance attaches to the former more than to the latter 
class of conceptions. Indeed, Sir W. Hamilton limits the 
term to the latter. But this again is not in aco^xd^iico 
with established usage. 



INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES 



PiRT FIRST 



THE PRESENTATIVE POWER. 



THB 



PRESENTATIVE POWER 



SENSE, OR PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 
§ I. — General Observations. 

T%is Faculty the Foundation of our Knowledge, — Of the 
cognitive powers of the mind, the first to be noticed, ac- 
cording to the analysis and distribution already given, is the 
Presentative Power — the power of cognizing external ob- 
jects through the senses. This claims our first attention, 
inasmuch as it lies, chronologically at least, at the founda- 
tion of all our cognitive powers, and in truth, of our entire 
mental activity. We can, perhaps, conceive of a being so 
constituted as to be independent of sense, and yet possess 
mental activity ; and we can even conceive such a mind as 
taking cognizance, in some mysterious way, of objects ex- 
ternal to itself. But not such a being is man — not such 
the nature of the human mind. Its activity is first awak 
ened through sense ; from sense it derives its knowledge of 
the external world, of whatever lies without and beyond 
the charmed circle of self; and whether all our knowledge 
is, strictly speaking, derived from sense, or not — a question 
so much disputed, and which we will not here stay to dis- 
cuss — there can be no doubt that the activity of sense, and 
the knowledge thus acquired, is at least the beginmng and 
foundation of all our mental acquisitions. We are con- 
stantly receiving impressions from without through the 
nenses. In this way the mind is first awakened to activity, 



60 PERCEPTION BY TH£^ SENSES. 

and from this source we derive our knowledge of the extei 
nal world. 

General Character of this Faculty. — In its general chai- 
acter the faculty now under consideration, as the name indi- 
cates, is presentative and intuitive. It presents rather than 
represents objects, and what the mind thus perceives it per 
ceives intuitively, rather than as the result of reflection. 
The knowledge which it gives is immediate knowledge, the 
knowledge of that which is now and here present, in time 
and space. 

Involves a twofold Element. — Looking more closely at 
the character of this faculty, we find it to involve a twofold 
element, which we cannot better indicate than by the terms 
subjective and objective. There is, in the first place, the 
knowledge or consciousness of our own sentient organism 
as affected, and there is also the knowledge of something 
external to, and independent of the mind itself, or the me, 
as the producing cause of this affection of the organism. 
We know, by one and the same act, ourselves as affected, 
and the existence and presence of an external something 
affecting us. This presupposes, of course, the distinct inde- 
pendent existence of the m^e and the not-me — of ourselves 
as thinking and sentient beings, and of objects external to 
ourselves, and material, — a distinction which lies at the 
foundation of all sense-perception. All perception by the 
senses involves, and presupposes, the existence of a sentient 
being capable of perceiving, and of an object capable of 
being perceived. It supposes, also, such a relation between 
the two, that the former is affected by the presence of the 
latter. From this results perception in its twofold aspect, 
or the knowledge, on the part of the sentient mind, at once 
of itself as affected, and of the object as affecting it. Ac- 
cording as one or the other of these elements is more di- 
rectly the object of attention, so the subjective and the 
objective character predominate in the act of perception. 
If the former, then we thmk chiefly of the me as affecte*!. 



PEKCEPTIJN bY THE SENSES. 61 

and are scarcely conscious of the external object as the 
source or the producing cause ; if the latter, the reverse 
18 true. 

§ n — Analysis of the Perceptive Process. 

Simple Sensation. — The nature of the presentative power 
may be better understood by observing closely the different 
teps of the process. As we come into contact with the 
external world, the first thing of which we are conscious, 
the first step in the process of cognition, is doubtless simple 
sensation. Something touches me, my bodily organism is 
thereby affected, and I am conscious, at once, of a certain 
feeling or sensation. I do not know as yet what has pro- 
duced the sensation, or whether any thing produced it. I 
do not as yet recognize it as the result of an affection of the 
bodily organism, or even as pertaining to that organism in 
distinction fi^om the spiritual principle. I am conscious only 
of a certain feeling. This is simple sensation — a purely 
subjective process. 

Mecog7iition of it as such. — We do not, however, stop 
here. The mind is at once aroused by the occurrence of the 
phenomenon supposed, the attention is directed to it. I 
cognize it as sensation, as feeling. If it be not the first in- 
stance of the kind in my experience, I distinguish it from 
other sensations which I have felt. 

Distribution of it to the Parts affected, — More than this; 
1 am conscious not only of the given sensation, but of its 
being an affection of my bodily organism, and of this or 
that part of the organism ; I distinguish the body as the seat 
of the sensation, and this or that part of the body as the 
part affected. The organism as thus affected becomes itself 
an object of thought as distinct from the thinking mind 
that animates and pervades it. It becomes to me an ex- 
ternality, having extension and parts out of and distinct 
from each other. As thus viewed, and brought now for the 
first time un der the eye o^' consciousness, it becomes known 



C2 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

to me as the noii-ego^ still connected, however, by sensa 
tion with the ego, the sentient principle and as thus viewed, 
I become aware that the sensation which I feel is an affection 
of that organism, and of a certain portion of it, as the hand, 
or the foot. This cognizince of the sensation as such^ aa 
pertaining to the organism, and to this or that part of the 
same, and the consequent cognizance of the organism aa 
such, as distinct from the sentient mind, and as thus and 
thus affected, is no longer simple sensation^ it is perception* 
Cognition of something external to the Organism itself 
— This is the most simple form of immediate perception. 
The process does not, however, necessarily stop here. I am 
conscious not only of this or that part of my organism aa 
affected, but of something external to the organism itself, 
in contact with and affecting it. This organism wath which 
I find myself connected, the seat of sensation, the object of 
perception, is capable of self-movement in obedience to my 
volitions. I am conscious of the effort to move my person, 
and conscious also of being resisted in those movements by 
something external in contact with my organism. This yet 
unknown something becomes now the object of attention 
and perception — this new phenomenon — resistance, some- 
thing resisting. To perceive that I am resisted, is to per- 
ceive that something resists, and to perceive this is to per- 
ceive the object itself which offers such resistance. I may 
not know every thing pertaining to it, what sort of thing it 
may be, but I know this respecting it, that it exists, that it 
is external to my organism, that it resists my movements. 
Thus the outer world becomes directly an object of percep- 
tion — passes under the immediate eye of consciousness. 

In what Sense these several Steps distinct, — In the prece- 
ding analysis, in order more clearly to illustrate the nature o^ 
the process, we have regarded the act of perception as 
broken into several distinct parts, or steps of progress. This, 
however, is not strictly correct as regards the psychology 
of the matter. Logically, we may distinguish the simple 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 60 

^nsation as mere feeling, from the reference of the same to 
this or tha*^ part of the bodily organism as affected, and 
each of these again, from the cognizance of the external ob- 
ject, which by contact or resistance produces the sensation. 
Chronologically, the act is one and indivisible. The sensa- 
tion and the perception are synchronous. We cannot 
separate the act of sense-perception into the consciousness 
of a sensation, the consciousness of the bodily organism as 
affected by that sensation, and the consciousness of an ex 
ternal something as the proximate cause of that affection. 
To experience a sensation, is to experience it as here or 
there in the sentient organism, and to perceive contact or 
resistance, is to perceive something in contact or resisting. 
There may, however, be sensation without cognizance of the 
external producing cause. 

Restricted Sense of the term Perception, — According to 
the view now advanced, perception is immediate; not a 
matter of inference, not a roundabout reflective process. 
It is a cognizance direct and intuitive of the bodily organi- 
zation as thus and thus affected, and of an external some- 
thing in correlation with it, affecting and limiting that or 
ganism in its movements. 

Usually, however, a wider range has been given to the 
term, and the faculty thereby denoted. It has been made 
to comprehend any mental process by which we refer a spe- 
cific sensation to something external as its producing cause. 
It is thus employed by Reid and Stewart, and such has been 
in fact the prevalent use of the term. According to this, 
when we experience the sensation of fragrance, and refer 
that sensation to the presence of a rose, or the sensation of 
sound, and refer it to the stroke of a bell, or a passing car 
riage, we exercise the faculty of perception. Evidently, 
however, our knowledge in these cases is merely a matter 
of inference, of judgment, not of immediate direct percep- 
tion, not in fact of perception at all. All that we properly 
perceive in such a case, all that we are directly cot scions of 



e54 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

IS the fragrance or the sound. That these are produced by 
the rose and the bell is not perceived, but only conceived^ 
inferred — known, if at all, only by the aid of previous ex- 
perience. 

Sensation as distinguished from Perception, — Accord- 
ing to the view now presented, sensation^ as distinguished 
from perception^ is the simple feeling which results from a 
certain affection of the organism. It is known to us merely 
as feeling. Perception takes cognizance of the feeling as 
an affection of the organism^ and also of the organism as 
thus affected, and consequently as external to the me, 
extended, having parts, etc. It apprehends also objects 
external to the organism itself limiting and affecting its 
movements. Sensation is the indispensable condition of 
perception. If there were no sensation, there would be no per- 
ception. The one does not precede, however, and the other 
follow in order of time, but the one being given, the other 
IS given along with it. The two do not, however, coexist 
in equal strength, but in the relation, as stated by Hamilton, 
of inverse ratio / that is, beyond a certain point, the stronger 
the sensation, the weaker the perception, and vice versd. 

Sensation as an Affection of the Mind. — It has been 
common to speak of sensation as lying wholly in the mind. 
Primarily, however, it is an affection of the nervous organ- 
ism, and through that organism, as thus affected, an impres- 
sion is made on the mind. If it were not for the mind 
present with the organism, and susceptible of impression 
from it, and thus cognizant of changes in it, the same 
changes might be produced in the organism as now, but we 
sbould be entirely unconscious of and insensible to them 
In certain states of the system this actually happens, as in 
Bound sleep, the magnetic state, the state produced by cer. 
tain medicinal agents as ether, chloroform, opium, and the 
intoxicating drugs of the East. In those cases, the connec- 
tion between the mind and the nervous organism seems to 
be in some manner interrupted or suspended, and consO' 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 6"i 

qnently there is for the time no sensation. The nerves Liay 
be D^ritated, divided even, and still no pain is felt. 

It is not true, however, that the sensation is wholly in the 
mind. It is in the living animated organism, as pervaded by 
the mind or spiritual principle, mysteriously present in every 
part of that organism, and cognizant of its changes ; and 
neither the body alone, nor the mind alone, can be said to 
possess this faculty, but the two united in that complex 
oaysterious imity which constitutes our present being. 

§111. — Analysis and Classification of the Qualities op BoDiEa. 

Difference of Qualities. — The qualities of bodies as 
known to us through sensation and perception are many 
and various. On examination, a difference strikes us as exist- 
ing among these qualities, which admits of being made the 
basis of classification. Some of them are qualities which 
strike us at once as essential to the very existence of matter, at 
least in our notion of it, so that we cannot in thought divest 
it of these qualities, and still retain our conception of matter. 
Others are not of this nature. Extension, divisibility, size, 
figure, situation, and some others, are of the former class. 
If matter exists at all, it must, according to our own con- 
ceptions, possess these qualities. We cannot think them 
away from it, and leave matter still existing. But we can 
conceive of matter as destitute of color, flavor, savor, heat, 
cold, weight, sound, hardness, etc. These are contingent 
and accidental properties not necessary to its existence. 

JSow named and distinguished, — Philosophers ha\ 8 

called the former class primary^ the latter secondary quail- 

^ties. The former are known a priori^ the latter by expe- 

nence. The former are known as qualities, in themselves, 

tire latter only through the affections of our senses. 

The primary qualities then have these characteristics : 

1. They are essential to the very existence of matter, at 
least in our conception. 



66 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

2. They are to be known a priori. 

3. They are known as such, or in themselves. 
The secondary, on the contrary, are : 

1. Accidental, not essential to the notion of matter. 

2. To be known only by experience. 

3. To be learned only through the affection of the senses. 
Further Division of secondary Qualities. — A further 

division, however, is capable of being made. The secon- 
dary qualities, as now defined, comprise, in reality, two 
classes. There are some, which, while known to us only 
through the senses, have still an existence as qualities of 
external objects, independent of our senses. As such they 
are objects of direct perception. Others, again, are known, 
not as qualities of bodies, but only as affections of sense, not 
as objective, but only as subjective, not as perceptions, but 
only as sensations. Thus I distinguish the smell, the taste, 
and the color of an orange. What I distinguish, however, 
is after all only certain sensations, certain affections of my 
own organism. What may be the peculiar properties or 
qualities in the object itself which are the exciting cause of 
these sensations in me, I know not. My perception does not 
extend to them at all. It is quite otherwise with the qualities 
of weight, hardness, compressibility, fluidity, elasticity, and 
others of that class. They are objects of perception, and 
not of sensation merely. 

These Classes^ how distinguished. — The class first 
named, are qualities of bodies as related to other bodies. 
The other class are qualities of bodies as related only to our 
nervous organization. The former all relate to bodies as 
occupying and moving in space^ and come under the cate- 
gory of resistance. The latter relate to bodies only a^ 
capable of producing certain sensations in us. We may call 
the former mechanical^ the latter physiological. 

Connection of Sensation with the external Object. — 
From long habit of connecting the sensation Avith the ex 
terna^ body which produces it, we find it difficult to per 



\ 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 67 

duade ourselves that taste and smell are mere aifections of 
our senses, or that color is really and simply an affection of 
the optic nerve of the beholder, and that what is actually 
perceived in these instances is not properly a quality of the 
external object. A little reflection, however, will convince 
us that all which comes to our knowledge in these cases, all 
that we are properly cognizant of, is the affection of our 
own nervous organism, and that whatever may be the na- 
ture of the qualities in the object which are the producing 
cause of these sensations in us, they are to us occult and 
wholly unknown. 

Power of producing these Sensations, — It is not to be 
denied, of course, that there is in external objects the power 
of producing these sensations .in us, under given circuni 
stances ; but to what that power is owing, in what pecu 
liarity of constitution or condition it consists, we know not 
We have but one name, moreover, for the power of pro 
ducing, and the effect produced. Thus the color, taste, 
smell, etc., of an object may denote either the sensation in 
us, or the unknown property of matter by vii'tue of which 
the sensation is awakened. It is only in the sense last men- 
tioned, that the quahties under consideration may properly 
be called qualities of bodies. 

Enumeration of the several Qualities as noio classed." 
According to the classification now made, the qualities of 
bodies may be thus enumerated. 

I. Primary, — Extension, divisibility, size, density, figure 
absolute incompressibihty, mobility, situation. 

n. Secondary, — A. Objective^ or m^echanical — as heavy 
or Hght, hard or soft, firm or fluid, rough or smooth, com- 
pressible or incompressible, resilient or ii-resilient, and any 
other qualities of this general nature resulting fi'om attrac- 
tion, repulsion, etc. 

B. Subjective or physiological — as color, sound, flavor, 
eavor, temperature, tactual sensation, and certain other 
affections of the senses of this nature. 



68 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

8 IV. — ^ Org INS of Sense. — Analysis op theik Several Fitnctionb 

Number of the Senses. — The different senses are usually 
reckoned as five in number. They may all be regarded, 
however, as modifications of one general sense, that of 
touch — or, in other words, the susceptibility of the nervous 
system to be excited by foreign substances brought into 
contact with it. This is the essential condition of sensation 
in any case, and the several senses, so called, are but so 
many variations in the mode of manifesting this excitability 
There is a reason, nevertheless, for assigning five of these 
modifications and no more, and that is, that the anatomi- 
cal structure indicates either a distinct organ, as the ear, 
the eye, etc., or at least a distinct branch of the nervous ap- 
paratus, as in the case of smell and taste, while the whole 
nervous expansion as spread out over the surface of the 
hody contributes to the general sense of touch. 

The Senses related to each other. — Distinct Office of each. 
— It is evident enough that these several senses sustain a 
certain relation to each other. They are so many and no 
more, not merely by accident ; not merely because so many 
could find room in the bodily organization ; not merely be- 
cause it might be convenient to have so many. Let us look 
at the office performed by each, and we shall see that while 
each has its distinct function, not interchangeable with that 
of any other, it is a function more or less necessary to the 
animal economy. Remembering that the design and use 
of the several senses is to put us in possession of data, by 
means of which, directly or indirectly, we may gain correct 
knowledge of the external world, let us suppose the inquiry 
to be raised. What senses ought man to have for this pur 
pose ? What does he need, the material universe remaining 
what it is ? 

Function of the Sense of Touch. — Things exist about ua 
in space, having certain properties and relations. We 
need a sense then, first and chiefly, that shall acquaint ua 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 89 

with objects thus existing, taking cognizance of what lies^ 
immediately about us in space. This we have in the gen 
eral sense of touch, making us acquainted with certain ob- 
jective or mechanical qualities of external objects. 

TTiis Seiise^ how limited, — This, however, avails only for 
objects within a short distance, and capable of being brought 
into contact. It operates also synthetically and slowl}, 
part after part of the object being given as we are brought 
into contact with different portions of it successively 
until the process is so far complete that, from the ensemble 
of these different parts, our understanding can construct the 
whole. 

Possibility of a Sense that shall meet these Lim.itations, 
— We can conceive of a sense that should differ in both 
these respects — that should take cognizance of distant ob- 
jects, not capable perhaps of being brought into contact — 
and that should also operate analytically, or work from a 
given whole to the parts, and not from the parts to a whole, 
thus giving us possession at once of a complete object or 
series of objects. Such a sense, it is easy to see, would pos 
sess decided advantages, and in connection with the one 
already considered, would seem to bring within the sphere 
of our cognizance almost the complete range of external 
nature. This we have, and this exactly, in the sense of 
vision. It takes in objects at a distance, and takes in the 
whole at a glance. 

This new Se?ise still limited, — This new sense, however, 
convenient and useful as it is, has evidently its limitations. It 
is available only through a given medium, the light. Strictly 
speaking, it is the light only that we see, and not the distant 
object ; that is known indirectly by means of the Ught that 
variously modified, travels from it to the eye. When this 
fails, as it does during several hours of the twenty-four, or 
wheo it is intercepted by objects coming between and shut- 
ting out the forms on which the eye seeks in vain to rest. 
then our knowledge from this source is cut off. 



to PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

St lU another Sense desirable,— JJnder these circumstances 
tuight it not be well, were there given an additional sense, 
of the same general nature and design, but operating 
through a different medium, sure to be present wherever ani- 
mal life exists, so that even in the darkness of the night, or 
the gloom of the dungeon, we might ^till have means of 
knowing something of the surrounding objects. And what 
of this medium, or avenue of sense, were of such a nature 
as to be capable of modification, and control, to some ex- 
tent, on our part, and at our pleasure, so as to form a means 
of voluntary communication with our feUow-beings. Would 
not such an arrangement be of great service ? Exactly 
these things are wanted ; exactly these wants are met, and 
these objects accomplished, by a new sense answering to 
these conditions — the sense of hearing — the cognizance 
of sound. This we produce when we please by the spoken 
word, the vocal utterance, whether of speech, or musical note, 
or inarticulate cry, varied as we please, high, low, loud, soft 
— a complete alphabet of expression, conveying thus by 
signals, at once rapid and significant, the varying moods and 
phases of our inner life to other beings that had else been 
strangers, for the most part, to the thoughts and feelings 
which agitate our bosoms. 

Senses for another Class of Qualities, ■— The senses, as 
thus far analyzed, have reference primarily to the number 
magnitude, and distance of objects as occupying space — 
to quantities rather than qualities. Were it possible now 
to add to these a sense, or senses that should take cogni 
zance of quality, as well as existence and quantity • — that 
should detect, to some extent at least, the cA6w^^ca^ proper- 
ties of bodies as connected especially with the functions of 
respiration and nutrition — the list of senses would seem to 
be complete. I'his addition is made, this knowledge given, 
in the senses of smell and taste. 

P'ossibllity of additional Senses, — To those already 
named, other senses might doubtless have been added b} 



PfiRCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 71 

the Creator, whioh would have revealed, it may be, })ro]>er 
ties of matter of which we have now no conception. It is 
not to be supposed that we know every thing respecting the 
nature and qualities of even the most familiar and common 
objects. Many things there may be, actual, real, in the 
world about us, of which we know nothing, because they 
come not within the range of any of our senses. But all 
that is essential to life, and happiness, and highest welfare 
is doubtless imparted by the present arrangement ; and 
when closely studied, no one of these senses will be found 
superfluous, no one overlapping the province of another, but 
working each its specific end, and all in harmony. 

The proper Office of Psychology in respect to the Senseiy. — 
It is the province of the anatomist and the physiologist to 
explain the mechanical structure of the several organs of 
sense, and their value as parts of the physical system. The 
psychologist has to do with them only as instruments of the 
mind, and it is for him to show their connection and proper 
office as such. This has been attempted in the precedmg 
analysis. 

The hind of Knowledge afforded hy the Senses. — It is to 
be noticed, in addition, that with the exception of the tac- 
tual sense, and possibly of sight, these senses give us n > 
direct, immediate knowledge of external things. They 
simply furnish data, signs, intimations, by the help of which 
the understanding forms its conclusions of the world wdtb 
out. They are the receiving agents of the mind. This 
is, in fact, the chief office of sense, to receive through its 
various avenues the materials from which the understandins; 
shall frame conceptions of things without; to convey, as is 
were, a series of telegraphic despatches along those curious 
and slender filaments that compose the nervous organization, 
bj' means of which the soul, keeping her hidden seat and 
chamber within, may receive communication from the dis- 
tant provinces of her empire. These signs the understand 
ing interprets; and in so far as this is the true nature of tbt 



72 perceptio:n^ by the senses, 

process, it is not a process of immediate and proper pei 
ception. I hear, for example, a noise. All tLat I really 
perceive in this case is the sensation* of sound. I refer 
It, however, to an external cause, to a carriage passing 
m the street. I specify, moreover, the kind of carriage, 
perhaps a coach, or a wagon with iron axles. I have ob- 
served, have learned by experience, that sounds of this 
nature are produced in this way, that is, by carriages pass- 
ing, and by such carriages. Hence I judge that the sound 
which I now hear is produced in the same way. It is an 
inference^ a conception merely. All that sense does is to re- 
ceive and transmit the sign, which the understanding inter- 
prets by the aid of former experience. And the same is 
true of the other senses, with the exceptions named. 

Not therefore of little Value. — We are not to infer, how 
ever, that these senses are on this account of no special 
value or importance to us. They do precisely what is 
needed. They put us in possession of just the data wanted 
in order to the necessary information concerning external 
things. It is only the theorist who undervalues the senses, 
and he only in his closet. No man, in the full possession 
of his reason, and his right mind, can go forth into this fair 
and goodly world, and not thank God for every one of those 
senses — sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. Their true 
and lull value, however, we never learn till we come to be 
deprived of their use ; till with Milton we exclaim, 

" Seasons return ; but not to me returns 
Day, or the sweet approach of even or morn." 

;5 V. — Amount op Information Derived from the Ri^sPECTiTE Sbnsks 

A further Question as to one Class of the Senses. — Tht 
relations and specific functions of the several senses have 
been already described. Some further questions arise, 
tiowev^r, respecting the precise amount and kind of infor 
aiution afHu'ded by tliat class of the senses wliich, as we 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. ?C 

have seen, relates to the spatial properties of bodies, in din- 
tinction from the chemical, viz. : hearing, sight, and touch. 

What is given ^n Hearing, — And first, as to the sense of 
hearing. What is it precisely that we hear ? When we 
iisten to a sound, we speak of hearing the object that pro- 
duces the sound ; we say, I hear a bell, a bird, a gun, etc. 
Strictly speaking, we do not hear the object, but only the 
sound. It is not the bell or the bird that we hear, but th< 
vibration of the air produced by bell and bird. This has 
been already illustrated by reference to a carriage passing in 
the street. It is only by experience, aided by other senses, 
that we learn to refer the sound to its producing cause. 

Hearing not properly Perception, — Is hearing then a sen- 
sation merely, or is it a perception ? If by perception we 
mean a direct knowledge of the external object — which is 
the proper sense of the word — hearing certainly is not per- 
ception. It gives us no such immediate knowledge. What 
we perceive in hearing is merely the sensation of sound. It 
may be doubted whether by this sense alone we should ever 
get the idea that what we hear is any thing external to our- 
selves. 

Affords the means of Judging. — As it is, however, we 
Judge, not only of the existence and nature, but of the 
distance and direction of the external object whence the 
sound proceeds. We learn to do this with great correct- 
ness, and with great facility. No sooner do we hear a 
Bound, in most instances, than we form an opinion at once, 
from what direction it comes, and what produces it; noi 
are we often mistaken in our judgment. The faculty of 
judging by the ear as to the direction of the sound, and the 
nature of the object producing it, may be cultivated by care 
and practice to a remarkable degree of accuracy. Napoleon 
was seldom mistaken as to the direction and distance of a 
cannonade. It is said that the Indian of the north-wesiern 
praines by applying his ear to the ground, will detect the 
approach of a body of cavalry at a distance beyond the 

4 



74 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

reach of vision, and distinguish their tread from that of a 
herd of buffaloes. 

Number of Sounds. — The number of sounds which the 
ear can distinguish is almost without limit. There are, it is 
said, five hundred distinct tones which an ear of usual accu- 
racy can recognize, and each of these tones admits of five 
hundred variations of loudness, giving, in all, two hundred 
aad fifty thousand different sounds. 

Power of Sound over the Mind, — The power of sound 
to affect the mind, and especially the feelings, is too well 
known to require specific statement. The note of an instru- 
ment, the tone of a human voice, the wild warbling of a 
bird, the tinkling of a bell, the variations of speech and of 
song, from the high and shrill to the low and heavy intona- 
tion, from the quick and impetuous to the slow and plaintive 
movement, these simple varieties of tone affect powerfully 
the heart, and find their way at once and irresistibly to the 
feelings. Hence the power of music over even the unculti- 
vated mind ; hence too in no small degree the power of the 
skilful orator over the feelings of his audience. It is not 
merely, nor so much, the thing said, in many cases, as the 
way of saying it, that touches and sways the assembled mul- 
titude. Tones and sounds have a natural meaning. They 
are the natural language of the heart. They express emo- 
tion, and hence awaken emotions in others. 

The Question as to Sight, — Turning now from the sense 
of hearing to that of sights the question arises, What is it 
precisely that we perceive by the eye ? When we fix the 
eye upon any object, more or less remote, what is it, strictly 
speaking, that we see, extension and figure, or only color IP 
Is it by vision that we learn primarily the distance Ox* objects 
and their locality ? These are points requiring investiga^ 
tion. 

Does Sight give Extension and Figure. — As to the first 
of these questions, whether extension and figure are objects 
of direct visual perception. No doubt they are associated 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 75 

in our minds with the act of vision, so that the mcment we 
see an object we obtain an idea of it as extended, and of 
such and such dimensions and figure. The question is, 
whether it is really through the sense of sight that we obtain 
this idea, or in some other way. Had we no other means 
of information, would sight alone give us this ? When wt 
first open our eyes on external objects, do we receive the 
idea of extension and figure, or only of color ? The fact 
that as matters are, we cannot in our experience separate the 
notion of some surface extension fi'om the sensation of color^ 
is not decisive of these questions. We cannot, as Dr. Bro^m 
observes, separate the color from the convexity and magni 
tude of an oak before us, but this does not prove that con- 
vexity and magnitude are objects of immediate and original 
perception. If every surface in nature had been convex, 
suggests the same writer, we should probably have found 
the same difficulty in attempting to conceive of color as 
separate from convexity, that we now find in attempting to 
conceive of it as separate from length and breadth. As it 
is, however, our sensation of color has not always been asso- 
ciated with convexity, while it has been always associated 
with surface extension. Hence it is, he maintains, that we 
seem to perceive, by the eye, the length, and breadth, and 
objects along with their color. 

Argument from the Affection of % Portion of the Retina, 
— The fact that in vision a certain portion of the retina in 
length and breadth is actually affected by the light falling 
on it, has been supposed by some to be conclusive of the 
fact that we perceive the length and breadth of the externa] 
object by the eye. This does not necessarily follow. As 
Dr. Brown contends, it is equally true that a certain part of 
the organ of smell is affected by odors, and a certain pait 
of the auditory nerve is affected by sounds, yet we are not 
conscious of any perception of extension by either of these 
organs ; we neither smell nor hear the length, and breadth, 
and magnitude of objects ; nor is there any reason to suppose 



76 PERCIPTION BY THE SENSES. 

that the particular portion ot the retina affected has any 
thing to do with the original sensation of sight. 

Amount of the preceding Arguments. — These arguments 
however, do not strike me as conclusive. They merely 
shoT^ the possibility that extension and figure may be ac- 
quired rather than original perceptions. They do not 
amount to positive evidence that they are so. 

An Argument to the Contrary, — On the other hand, 
there is one consideration of a positive character, which to 
most minds will be likely to outweigh the merely negative 
arguments already adduced. Color is a property of hght, 
and light comes to us reflected from objects occupying 
space ; we perceive it only as we perceive it spread over 
and reflected from some surface. Extension, then, surface 
expansion of the reflecting object, is the indispensable con- 
dition of the visibility of light itself, and so of color, as re- 
flected from the object. Now it is difficult to persuade our- 
selves that what we know to be an essential condition of 
the perception of color, and what we seem to perceive along 
with the color, and cannot, even in thought, wholly separate 
from it, is not, after all, really perceived by the eye. 

Argument from recent Discoveries. — Indeed, recent dis- 
coveries in science seem to vindicate that not only surface 
extension, but trinal extension, or solidity^ may be an 
object of direct perception by the eye. I refer to the 
researches of Wheatstone, in binocular vision, which go 
to show, that in consequence of the difference of the images 
formed upon the right and the left eye, as occupying differ- 
ent positions with reference to the object seen, we are en- 
abled by the eye to cognize the solidity as well as the exten- 
sion of objects. The difference of figure in the two imagea 
gives us this. That such is the case is shown by an instru- 
ment, the stereoscope, so constructed as to present separ 
ately the image as formed on each eye, which, when separ- 
ately viewed, appear as mere plane surfaces, but when 
viewed together, the right image with the nght eye, and 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 77 

the left one with the left eye, at the same time, preseat no 
longer the appearance of plane surfaces, but the two images 
combine to form one distinct figure, and that a solid, having 
length, breadth, thickness, and standing out with all the 
semblance of the real object. 

It is hardly necessary to say that if extension is an object 
of perception by the eye, so also is figure, which is merely 
the limitation of extension in different directions. 

Second Question — Does Sight give Distance ? — Is it also 
by vision that we obtain the idea of the distance of objects 
and their externality ? Does vision alone give the idea tha* 
what we see is numerically distinct from ourselves, and that 
it occupies this or that particular locality ? So it would seem, 
judging from the impression left upon the mind in the act 
of vision. We seem to see the object as here or there, ex- 
ternal, more or less distant in space. We distinguish it 
from ourselves. 

The negative View, — This is denied by some. All that 
we see, they contend, is merely the light coming from the 
object, and from the variations and modifications which this 
exhibits we learn to judge by experience of the distance and 
locality of the object. It is a matter of judgment and not 
of perception. We have learned to associate the two things, 
the visual appearance and the distance. 

Argument in the Negative. — In proof of this they ad- 
duce the fact that we are frequently mistaken in our esti- 
mate of the distance of objects. If there be more or fewer 
intervening objects than usual, if the atmosphere be more 
3r less clear than usual, or any like circumstance affords a 
variation from our ordinary experience, we are misled as to 
the distance of the object. Hence we mistake the distance 
of ships at sea, or of objects on a prairie or a desert, the 
width of rivers, the height of steeples, towers, etc. 

Further Argument in the N'egative, — It is further con- 
tended that facts show that the impressions of sight alone, 
uncorrected by experience, do not convey the idea of dis- 



78 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 

tance at all, but that what we see seems to be in coune jt»an 
with the eye itself, until we learn the contrary by the aid oi 
other senses. This, it is said, is the experience of persona 
who have been operated upon for cataract, particulaily of a 
patient whose case is described by Cheselden, and who 
thought every thing which he saw, touched his eyes. It is 
said also to have been the same with Caspar Hauser, when 
first liberated from the long confinement of his dungeon, 
and permitted to look out upon the external world. The 
goodly landscape seemed to him to be a group of figures, 
drawn upon the window. 

Force of this Argument. — This, however, is not incon- 
sistent with the perception of externality by vision, since 
even what seems to be in contact with the eye, nay, what is 
known to be so, may still be known as external. Contact 
implies externality. It is very much to be doubted, more 
over, whether the cases now referred to, coincide with the 
usual experience of those who are learning to see. The lit- 
tle child seems to recognize the externality and remoteness 
from his own person of the objects which attract his atten- 
tion, as soon as he learns to observe surrounding objects at 
all, and, though he may not judge correctly of their relative 
distance from himself, never seems by his movements to sup- 
pose that they are in contact with his eye or with any part 
of his person. The young of animals, also, as soon as they 
are born, seem to perceive by the eye, the externality, the 
direction, and the distance of objects, and govern their 
movements accordingly. It is not, in these cases, a mattei 
of experience, but of direct perception. These facts render it 
doubtful, to say the least, whether the common impression — * 
that which in spite of all arguments to the contrary, is, and 
aiways will be made upon the mind in the act of vision, viz., 
that we see objects as external, as having locality, and as 
more or less remote from us — is not, after all, the correct 
impression. 

Learning to judge of Distance not inconsistent with thin 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 75 

flew. — Nor does it conflict with this view that we leam to 
judge of the true distance of objects, and are often deceived 
in regard to it. The measurement of distance, the more or 
less of it, is of course a matter of experience, a thing to be 
learned by practice. It does not follow, however, that we 
may not by the eye directly, and at first, perceive an object 
to be external, and removed from us, in other words distant, 
though we may not know at first how distant. The rays of 
light that come to us from this external object, may give us 
direct perception of the object as external, as extended, and 
as occupying apparently a given locality in space more or 
less remote, while at the same time it may be left to other 
senses and to experience to determine how great that diA- 
tance is. 

Questions as to Touch, — Passing now from the sense of 
sight to that of touchy we find similar questions discussed 
among philosophers respecting the precise information af- 
forded by this sense. Does touch give us immediate per- 
ception of externality, extension, form, hardness, softness, 
etc., including the various mechanical properties of bodies ? 
To this sense it has been common to ascribe these faculties 
of perception. They are so attributed by Reid, TJpham, 
Wayland, and, I believe, by modern writers generally, with 
the exception of Brown and Hamilton. 

Probability of another Source of Information, — It may 
be questioned, I think, whether, as regards some of these 
qualities at least, it is not rather the consciousness of resist- 
ance to muscular efibrt, than the sense of touch, properly 
Bpeaking, that is the informing source. So, for example, as 
to hardness ; the application of an external body lightly to 
he hand awakens the sense of touch, but conveys no idea 
of hardness. Let the same object be allowed to rest with 
gradually increasing weight upon the hand until it becomes 
painful, and we get the idea of weight, gravitation, but not 
of the hardness or impenetrability of the object. It is only 
\^h<m our muscular efibrt to move or peneK-ate the external 



80 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

body is met and resisted by the same, that we learn the im^ 
penetrabihty of the opposing body. 

Other Perceptions attributable to the same Source, — So 
with regard to externality, extension, and form. When an 
external object, a cube, for example, or an ivory ball, ia 
placed on the palm of the hand, sensation is awakened, but 
is that sensation necessarily accompanied with the percep- 
tion of the external object as such ? Does the mere tactual 
sensation, in the first instance, and of itself, inform us that 
there is something external to ourselves, that what we feel 
is not a part of our own organism ? We are conscious of a 
change in the sensation of the part affected, but are we im- 
mediately conscious that this change is produced by some- 
thing external ? Let there be given, however, the conscious- 
ness of resistance to our muscular movements, as when the 
cube or ball, for instance, prevents the effort to close the 
hand, or when our locomotion is impeded by the presence 
of some obstacle, and will not the same resistance inform ua 
of the extension of the resisting body, and so of its form 
and figure ? We learn whereabout in space this resistance 
occurs, and where it ceases. The tactual sensation would 
indeed very soon come to our aid in this cognition, and 
serve as a guiding sense, even in the absence of the former. 
The question is, whether this alone would, in the first in 
stance, give us such cognitions ? 

Our first Ideas of Extension^ how derived. — We have 
had reference in this discussion only to the qualities of ex- 
ternal bodies. There can be little question that omx first 
ideas of extension are derived from our own sentient organ- 
ism, the consciousness of sensations in different parts of the 
body, distinct from, and out of each other, thus affording 
the knowledge of an extended sentient organization. The 
idea of externality, or outness, and extension, thus acquired, 
the transition is easy from the perception of our own bodies 
as possessing these qualities, to the cognizance of the same 
qualities in external objects. 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. ^J 

g VI. — Credibility of our Sensations and Perceptions. 

Denied by some, — There have always been those who 
WQYQ disposed to call in question the testimony of the senses. 
Such were the Eleatics and the Skeptics among the Greek 
philosophers, and there have not been wanting among the 
moderns minds of acuteness and ingenuity that have fol- 
lowed in the same path. While admitting the phenomemi 
of sense, the appearance of things as being so and so, they 
have called in question the corresponding objective reality 
Things appear to me to be thus and thus — such and such 
impressions are made on my senses — that I cannot deny ; 
but how do I know that the reality corresponds to my im- 
pressions, or, in fact, that there is any reality ? How know 
we our senses to be reliable ? What evidence have we that 
they do not habitually deceive us ? 

Emdence demanded, — It were perhaps a sufficient answer 
to this question to reply. What emdence have we, or can we 
have, that they do deceive us ? In the absence of all evi- 
dence to the contrary, is it not more reasonable to suppose 
that our perceptions correspond to realities, than that they 
are without foundation, uncaused, or caused by something 
not at all answering to the apparent object of perception ; 
more reasonable to suppose that there is a real table or book 
answering to my perception of one, than that I have the 
perception while there is no such reality ? It remains with 
those, then, who question and deny the validity of sense- 
perception, to show reasons for such denial. And this be- 
comes the more imperative on them, inasmuch as they 
contradict the common belief and universal opinion of man- 
kind — nay, what, in spite of all their arguments, is still, by 
their own confession, their own practical conviction and belief. 

Evidence impossible. — But whence is this evidence to 
come? Where is it to be sought ? How are we to prove 
that sense deceives us, except by arguments drawn from 
«*ense ? And if sense is not reliable in the first instance. 



52 . PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

why re.y upon it in the second, to prove that it is not re- 
liable ? If the senses do habitually deceive us, manifestly 
it can never be shown that they do. And, even if this 
could be shown, it would be impossible to find any thing 
better to rely upon in their stead. We have these guides or 
none. We have these instruments of observation provided 
for the voyage of life. We may pronounce them worthless 
ud throw them into the sea, but we cannot replace them. 

Inconsistent and contradictory Testimony of Sense. — 
But it may be replied that the testimony of sense is often 
inconsistent with itself, and contradictory of itself. What 
is sweet to one is sour and bitter to another. What seems a 
round tower in the distance becomes a square one as you 
approach ; and the straight stick that you hold m your hand 
appears crooked when thrust into the water. There is in 
reaUty, however, no contradiction or inconsistency in the 
cases supposed. The change of circumstances accounts in 
every instance for the change of appearance. In the case 
of the stick, for example, the different density of the water 
accounts for the refraction of the rays of light that pass' 
through it, and this accounts for the crooked appearance of 
the stick that is only partially submerged. So in the other 
cases ; it is no contradiction that an object which appears 
round at a distance of ten miles, should appear square at the 
distance of so many rods — or that the taste of two persons 
should not agree as to the savor of a given object. 

Deceptions of Sense, — It may be further objected that in 
k^.ertain states of the physical organism, sensations are ex* 
perienced which seem to be of external origin, but are really 
produced by internal changes ; and that in such cases we 
have the same perceptions, see the same objects, hear the 
same things, that we should if there were a corresponding 
external reality, while nevertheless there is no such reality, 
and it can be proved that there is none. If this may happen 
in some cases, why not in others, or in all ? 

Reply. — I reply, the simpL ^act, that in the case sup- 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. fe^ 

posed the deception can be detected and proved, sho^^s the 
difference between that and ordinary perception. If the 
senses were not habitually reliable, we could not detect the 
mistake in this particular instance. If all coin were counter 
feit, how could we detect a counterfeit coin ? We know^ 
moreover, Jiow to account for the mistake in the case before 
us. It occurs, by the supposition, only in a certain state of 

he organism, that is, only in a diseased, abnormal conditioD 
of the system. The exception proves the rule. 

Distinction of direct and indirect Testimony. — A di» 
tinction is to be made, in the discussion of this subject, be- 
tween the direct and indirect testimony of the senses, be- 
tween that which is strictly and properly perception, and 
that which is only conception, judgment, inference. What 
I really perceive, for example, in the case of the distant 
tower, or the stick partially under water, is only a given ap- 
pearance ; I infer from that appearance that the tower is 
round and the stick crooked, and in that inference I am mis- 
taken. My judgment is at fault here, and not my senses. 
They testified truly and correctly. They gave the real ap- 
pearance, and this was all they could give, all they ever 
give. This has been well stated by Dr. Reid, and, long be- 
fore him, the same ground was taken, in reply to the same 
objection, by Aristotle and also by Epicurus. 

Direct Perception gives what, — In regard to dii'ect and 
immediate perception, the case is different. Here the testi- 
mony is positive to the existence of the object. When 
Bomething resists my voluntary movement, I am conscious 
of that resistance, conscious of something external and re- 
sisting. I cannot deny the fact of that consciousness. 1 

nay, however, deny the correctness, the truthfulness of 
what consciousness affirms. To do this, however, is to put 
an end to all reasoning on the subject, for, when we give up 
consciousness as no longer reliable, there is nothing left to 
fall back upon. If any one chooses to leap from this preci 
pice, we can only ^dij finis. 



^4 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

g YII. — Historical Sketch. 

* I. Of Different Divisions op the Qualities ob 
Bodies. 

Tlie Greek Philosophers. — The distinction of the quali 
ties of bodies into two classes, differing in important re 
spects, is by no means a modern one. It was recognized by 
some of the earlier Greek philosophers, who held that the 
sweet, bitter, hot, cold, etc., are rather affections of our own 
senses than proper qualities of matter, having independent 
existence. Subsequently the view was adopted by Protago- 
ras, and by the Cyrenean and Epicurean schools. Plato 
held it, and especially and very fully, Aristotle, who calls the 
qualities to which we have referred, and which are usually 
denominated secondary, affective qualities, because they have 
the power of affecting the senses, while the qualities now 
usually termed primary, as extension, figure, motion, num- 
ber, etc., he regards as not properly objects of sense. The 
former class he calls proper sensibles, the latter, common. 

The Schoolmen, — The schoolmen made much of this dis- 
tinction, and held, with Aristotle, that the qualities now 
called primary, require, for their cognition, other faculties 
than those of sense. 

Doctrine of Galileo, — Galileo points out the true ground 
and philosophy of this distinction, and also gives the name 
primary to the class referred to, viz., those qualities which 
are necessary to our conception of body^ as for example, 
figure, size, place, etc., while, on the contrary, colors, tastes, 
etc., are not inherent in bodies, but only in us, and we caa 
conceive of body without them. The former are real quali- 
ties of bodies, while the latter are only conceptions which 
give us no real knowledge of any thing external, but only 
of the affections of our own minds. 

TVie Moderns. — Descartes and Locke merely adopted 
these distinctions as they found them, without essentia) 
modification. So also did Reid and Stewart^ although both 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 85 

mcluled among the primary qualities some which are prop- 
erly secondary, as roughness, smoothness, hardness, softness. 
Indeed Stewart restricted the primary qualities to those and 
such as those just named. 

Hamilton. — No writer has so fully elaborated this mat- 
ter as Sir William Hamilton, to whom we are indebted 
mainly for the historical facts now stated, and whose disserta- 
tions are and must ever remain an invaluable thesaurus on 
the philosophy of perception. So complete and elaborate is 
his classification of the qualities of matter, that I shall be 
pardoned for giving a synopsis of its principal points in this 
connection. 

SamiltonPs Scheme - — General Divisions. — He divides 
the qualities of bodies into three classes, which he calls 
primary, secundo-primary, and secondary. The primary 
are thought as essential to the very notion of matter, and 
may be deduced a priori^ the bare notion of matter being 
given ; while the secundo-primary and the secondary, being 
accidental and contingent, must be deduced a posteriori^ 
learned by experience. His deduction of the primary quali- 
ties is as follows : 

PHmary Qualities, — We can conceive of body only as, 
I. Occupying space ; H. Contained in space. Space is a 
necessary form of thought, but we are not obliged to con- 
ceive of space as occupied, that is, to conceive of matter. 
When conceived it must be under the conditions now 
named. 

I. The property of occupying space is Simple Solidity^ 
which implies, a. Trinal extension, or length, breadth, ana 
thickness ; 5. Impenetrability, or the property of not be- 
ing reduced to non-extension. Trinal extension involves, 
1. Number, or Divisibility; 2. Size, including Density; 3. 
ShapCr 

n. The attribute of being contained in space, affords the 
action, 1. Of Mobility; 2. Of Position. 

Th3 essential and necessary constituents then of our no 



86 PERCEPTION BY TxIE SENSES. 

tion of matter are, 1. Extension (comprising unJer it, 2 
DivisibiJity ; 3. Size ; 4. Density ; 5. Figure) ; 6. Ultimate 
Incompressibility ; 7. Mobility ; 8. Situation. These are 
the primary qualities, products, in a sort, of the understand- 
ing, developing themselves with rigid necessity out of the 
^iven notion of substance occupying space. 

SecundO'Primary Qualities, — The secundo-primary are 
contingent modifications of the primary, all have relation to 
Bpace, and motion in space, all are contained under the cate- 
gory oj^ resistance^ or pressure^ all are learned or included aa 
results of experience, all have both an objective and sub- 
jective phase, being at once qualities of matter, and also 
affections of our senses. 

Considered as to the sources of resistance, there is, I. That 
of Co-attraction^ under the forms of a. Gravity, 5, Cohesion ; 
11. That of Repulsion ; III. Inertia ; all which are capable 
of minute subdivision. Thus from cohesion follow the hard 
and soft, firm and fluid, tough and brittle, rigid and flexible, 
rough and smooth, etc., etc. From repulsion are derived 
compressible and incompressible, resilient and irresilient. 

Secondary Qualities. — The secondary qualities are, as 
apprehended by us, not properly attributes of body at all, 
but only affections of our nervous organism. They belong 
to bodies only so far as these are furnished with the power 
of exciting our nervous organism to the specific action thus 
designated. To this class belong color, sound, flavor, savor 
tactile sensation, feeling of heat, electricity, etc. Such also 
are titillation, sneezing, shuddering, and the various sensa 
tions, pleasurable or painful, resulting from the action of ex 
ternal stimuli. 

T/iese Classes further distinguished, — Of the qualitie 
thus derived, the primary are known immediately in them 
selves, the secondary only mediately in their effects on us, 
the secundo-primary both immediately in themselves, and 
mediately in their effects on us. The primary are qualities 
of body in relation to body simply, and to our organism 



PERCEPTION Bl THE SENSES. 87 

as SQcL ; the secundo-primary are qualities of body m rela- 
tion to our organism, not as body in general, but as body 
of a particular sort, viz. : propelling, resisting, cohesive ; 
the secondary are qualities of body in relation to our organ- 
ism as excitable and sentient. The primary may be roundly 
characterized as mathematical, the secundo-primary as me- 
chanical, the secondary as physiological. 

Heasons for retaining the two/old Division. — Such, in 
brief outline, are the principal points of Hamilton's classifi 
cation. While following in the main the distinctions here 
mdicated, I have preferred to retain the old division into 
primary and secondary, as at once more simple, and suffi- 
ciently accurate, merely dividing the secondary into two 
classes, the mechanical (secundo-primary of Hamilton), and 
physiological. We are thus enabled, not merely to retain a 
division and nomenclature which have antiquity and au- 
thority in their favor, and are well-nigh universally received, 
but we avoid the almost barbarous terminology of Sir Wil- 
liam's classification — while, at the same time, we indicate 
with sufficient precision the important distinction between 
the so-called secundo-primary and secondary qualities. 

n. Op DrETERENT Theories of Perception. 

Healists and Idealists. — There are two leading theories, 
quite distinct from each other, which have widely prevailed, 
and divided the thinking world, as to the philosophy of per- 
ception. The one maintains that in perception we have 
direct cognizance of a real external world. This is the view 
taken in the preceding pages, and now generally held by 
psychologists in this country, and to some extent in Europe 
But for a long period, the prevalent, and in fact, until the 
time of Reid in Scotland, and Kant in Germany, the almost 
universally-received opinion was the reverse of this — that 
in perception, as in any and all other mental acts, the mind 
is conscious only of its own ideas, cognizant of itself and ita 
own states only, incapable, in fact, of knowing any thing 



88 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

external to itself. Those who hold the former view are 
termed Mealists^ the latter Idealists. 

Further division of the latter. — The latter, however, are 
of two classes. The Absolute Idealists hold that the notion 
we have of external things is purely subjective, having no 
external counterpart, no corresponding outward reality. In 
distinction from this the greater part maintain that while 
Ve are cognizant, directly and strictly, of nothing beyond 
our own minds, nevertheless there is an external reality cor- 
responding to the idea in our minds, and which that idea 
represents. Hence they have been designated MepresenU 
ative Idealists^ or, as Sir William Hamilton terms them, 
Cosmothetic Idealists. 

Farther Distinction. — Of these latter, again, some hold 
the idea which we have of an external world to be merely a 
state or modification of the mind itself; others regard it as 
a sort of intermediate connecting link between mind and 
matter. The former may be called egoistic, and the latter 
non-egoistic. 

Summary of Classes. — We have then these three great 
classes — the Natural Realists^ the Absolute Idealists^ and 
the Representative Idealists comprising the Egoistic and 
Non-Egoistic divisions. 

Distinguished Writers of the different Glasses. — On the 
roll of absolute idealism are names of no smaU distinction : 
Berkley and Hume, in England, Fichte and Hegel, in Ger- 
many, are of the number ; while among the representative 
idealists one finds Descartes, Arnauld, Malebranche, Leibnitz, 
Locke, in fine, the greater number of philosophic writers from 
Descartes onward to the time of Reid. Subsequently even, 
we find a writer of no less repute than Dr. Brown assuming, 
as the basis of his philosophy of perception, the exploded 
theory of representative idealism, under the egoistic form. 
Of natural realists since the time of Reid, Sir W. Hamilton 
ifl the most distinguished. 

Origin of Representative Idealism. — The doctrine of 



PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 89 

representative perception doubtless originated in the diffi- 
culty ot conceiving how a purely spiritual existence, the 
human mind, can, by any possibility, take cognizance of, or 
be affected by, a purely material substance, the external 
world. The soul seated in its presence-chamber, the brain, 
can cognize nothing beyond and without, for nothing can 
act except where it is present. It must be, then, said the 
philosophers, that in order to the mind's perceiving any 
thing of that which lies beyond and without its own imme- 
diate locality, there must come to the mind from that outer 
world certain little images bearing some resemblance to the 
things without, and representing to the soul that external 
world. These images — more refined than matter, less spirit- 
ual than mind itself, of an intermediate nature between the 
two — they termed ideas. 

Tendency of Representative to Absolute Idealism, — It is 
easy to see how such a doctrine would lead almost inevi- 
tably to absolute idealism. If we do not in perception take 
cognizance directly of matter external, but only of certain 
images or ideas in our own minds, then how do we know 
that these images correctly represent the external reality, 
which we have never cognized, and never shall ? How do 
we know, in fact, that there is any such external reality ? 
What evidence have we, in a word, of the existence of any 
thing beyond and without our own minds ? This was the 
actual result to which Berkley and Hume drove the then 
prevalent philosophy of Europe, as to a legitimate and in 
evitable result. 

Relation of Dr. Reid to this Controversy, — To Dr. Reid 
belongs the credit of rescuing philosophy from this dan 
gerous extreme, by showing the utter falsity of the ideal 
theory. He took the ground that the existence of any such 
representative images in the mind is wholly without proof, 
nay more, is inconceivable ; that while we can conceive of 
an image of form or figure, we cannot conceive of an image 
of sound, or ol ^aste or smell. The hypothesis is wholly 



90 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES. 

without foundation. But even if it were conceivable and 
established by sufficient evidence, still it would explain 
nothing as to tne manner in which the mind perceives ex 
ternal objects. It relieves no difficulty. If the representa- 
tive image be itself material, how can the mind take cog- 
nizance of it ? If not material, how can it represent matter, 
and how can the mind know that it does represent correctly 
the external object? 

State of the Matter since Reid. — Since the time of Dr. 
Reid,.this theory of representative perception, at least in 
this non-egoistic form, has been for the most part aban- 
doned, and philosophers have been content to take the 
grouted indicated by consciousness, and the common sense 
of mankind, that in perception we take direct cognizance 
of the external object. 

Position of Hamilton, — It remained for Sir W. Hamil- 
ton to complete the work which Dr. Reid began, by show- 
ing that the representative theory, in its finer or egoistic? 
form, as held by Dr. Brown and others, is equally untenable 
or unsound ; that it makes little difference whether we re- 
gard the image or idea, which we take to represent the 
external object, as something distinct from the mind itself, 
or whether we view it as a mere modification or state of the 
mind, so long as we make any thing of the sort the direct 
object of perception instead of the real external thing. 
Idealism is the result in either case, and philosophical skepti- 
cism the goal. In place of any and all such views, Hamilton 
maintains, with great power and earnestness, the doctrine 
of natural realism — that in perception we are cognizant 
immediately and directly of the external object. 

As no other writer has so fully elaborated this department 
of science, it may be of service to present in this connection 
the chief points of his theory. 

Chief Points of Hamilton's Theory of Perception, — 
All perception is immediate cognition ; we perceive only 
what we apprehend as now and here existent ; and henc« 



I'EKCErXION JBX IHE SENSES 9i 

what we perceive is either in our own organism, viewed as 
material, extended, etc., or else is in immediate correlation 
to it. The organism is, in perception, viewed as not-me ; in 
sensation, as of the me. 

What is given in Perception proper. — What we appre- 
hend in perception proper is: 1. The primary qualities of 
body as pertaining to our own organism ; 2. The secundo- 
primary qualities of bodies in correlation to it. (See Ham- 
ilton's division of qualities of bodies, as above.) 

Primary Qualities of external Objects^ how known. — The 
primary qualities of things external to our organism we do 
not perceive immediately, but only infer, from the effects 
produced on us by them. Neither in perception nor sensa- 
tion do we apprehend immediately, or in itself, the external 
cause of our affection or sensation. That is always unknown 
to consciousness, known only by inference or conjecture. 

External Existence^ how learned. — The existence of the 
world without is apprehended not in a perception of the 
primary qualities of things external, but of the secundo- 
primary — i. e., in the consciousness that our movements are 
resisted by something external to our organism. This in- 
volves the consciousness of something external, resisting 
The two things are conjunctly apprehended. 

This presupposes what. — This experience presupposes 
the notion of space, and motion in space. These are inher 
ent, instinctive native elements of thought, and it is idle to 
inquire how we come by them. Every perception of sen 
sations out of and distinct from, other sensations gives occa- 
rion for conceiving the idea of space. Outness involves it. 

Points of Difference between this Theory and Peid^s. — 
rhe system, as thus stated, differs in some respects mate- 
rially from the doctrine of perception advanced by Dr. Reid, 
and generally adopted since his time by the English and 
Scotch philosophers. According to Hamilton, perception is 
not, as held by Reid and others, the conception of an object 
Huggested by sensation, but the direct cognition of some- 



92 PERCEPTION BY THE SENSES 

thing. We do not merelj conceive of the object as existing, 
and believe it to exist, we know it smd perceive it to exist 
Nor does sensation precede, and perception follow, as gener- 
ally stated, but the two are, in time, conjunct, coexistent. 
Nor do we perceive the secondary qualities of bodies, as 
Buch, but only in^er them from our sensations. Neither do 
we perceive distant objects through a medium, as usually 
held, but what we perceive is either the organism itself, as 
affected thus and thus, or what is directly in contact with it, 
as affecting and resisting it. Extension and externality, 
again, are not first learned by touchy as Reid holds, and 
most subsequent writers, both English and American, but 
in other ways ; the former, by the perception of the primary 
qualities of our own organism, as the seat of sensations dis- 
tinct from other sensations elsewhere localized ; the latter, 
by the resistance which we experience to our own locomot- 
ive force. Finally, sensation proper is not, as with Reid and 
others, an affectioi purely of the mind, but of mind and 
body as complex. Its subject is as much one as the other. 



I.NrELLECTUAL FACULTIES. 



PART SECOND 



THB. REPRESENTATIVE POWER. 



Tax 



REPRESENTATIVE POWER 



GENERAL OBSERYATIONS. 



NiU?ire of this Power — Its various Forms. — It is in the 
mind's power to conceive or represent to itself an object not 
at the time present to the senses. This may take place ic 
several forms. There may be the simple reproduction iu 
thou.ght of the absent object of sense. There mav be, alon^ 
with the reproduction or recurrence of the object, the re 
cognition of it as a former object of sensation or perception 
There may be the reproduction of the object not as it is, or 
was, when formerly perceived, but with variations, the dif 
ferent elements arranged and combined not according to 
the actual and original, but according to the mind's own 
ideals, and at its will. This latter form of conception i? 
what is usually termed imagination — while ih.^ general 
term memory, as ordinarily employed, is made to include 
the two former. While using the term in this general 
sense, we may properly distinguish, however, between 
mental reproduction, and mental recognition, the latter bo 
mg strictly the office of memory. 

All these are but so many forms of the representative 
power. We may designate them respectively as the re^ 
productive^ recognitive^ and creative faculties. The mind's 
activity is essentially the same under each of these forms. 
The object is not given but thought^ not presented to sense, 
but represented to the mind. The process is reflective rathei 



1 



96 MEMORY. 



than intuitive. It is a matter of understanding rather than 
of sense or of reason. It is a conception, not a perception 
or an intuition, and it is a simple conception of the object as 
it is or is conceived to be, m itself considered, and not in 
relation to other objects. 



CHAPTER I. 

MEMORY. 
§ L — Mental REPBODuoTioir. 

I. Nahtre op the Process. 

General Character. — As now defined, this is that form of 
mental activity in which the mind's former perceptions and 
sensaticns are reproduced in thought. The external objects 
are no longer present — the original sensations and percep- 
tions have vanished — but by the mind's own power are re- 
produced to thought, giving, as it were, a representation or 
image of the original. 

Example. — Suppose, for instance, that I have seen Stras- 
burg minster, or the cathedral of Milan. Months, perhaps 
irears pass away. By-and-by, in some other and remote part 
of the world, something reminds me of that splendid struc- 
ture ; I see again its imposing front, its lofty towers, its airy 
pinnacles and turrets. The solemn pile rises complete, as 
by magic, to the mind's eye, and, regardless of time or dis- 
tance, the faculty of simple conception reproduces the object 
as it is. 

Conceptions of Sound. — In like manner 1 form a concep- 
tion, more or less distinct, of sounds once heard. The 
chanting of the evening service in the Churck of the 
Madeleine at Paris, and the prolonged note of a shepherd's 
horn among the Alps, are instances of musical sound that 
frequently recur with startling distinctness to the mind 



MEMORY. 9V 

The same is to some extent true of the ser Rations and per- 
ceptions derived from the other senses. With more oi less 
vividness the objects of all such sensations and perceptions 
are capable of being reproduced in conception. 

The Conceptions not of Necessity connected with the Re- 
collection of Self as the Percipient, — In these cases there 
may or may not be a connection of the object, as it lies be- 
fore our minds, with our own personal history as the formei 
percipients of that object. The time, place, circumstance, 
of that perception may not be distinctly before us ; even 
the fact that we have ourselves seen, heard, felt, what we 
now conceive, may not, at the moment, be an object of 
thought. These are the elements of memory or mental re- 
cognition, and are certainly very likely to stand associated 
m our minds with the conception of the object itself. But 
not always nor of necessity is it so. There may be simple 
conception of the object, mental reproduction, where there 
IS, for the time being, no recognition of any thing further. 
The Str^sburg minster, the chanting of the choir, the note 
of the mountain horn, the snowy peak of Jungfrau, may 
fiitand out by themselves before the mind, abstracted from 
all thought of the time, the place, the circumstances in 
which they were originally perceived, or even from all 
thought of the fact that we have at some former time actu- 
ally perceived these very objects. They may present them 
selves as pure conceptions. 

Conceptions vary in some Respects, — Our conceptions 
vary in respect to definiteness and clearness. The objects 
of some of the senses are more readily and also more dis 
tmctly conceived than those of others. The sense of sight 
is peculiar in this respect. A visible object is more easily 
and more distinctly conceived than a particular sound or 
taste. The sense of hearing is, perhaps, next to that of sight 
in this respect ; while the sensations of taste and smell are 
BO seldom the objects of distinct conception, that some have 
even deniei the power of conceiving them. Dr. Wayland 

ft 



98 MEMORY. 

jiaintains this view. That we do form conceptions more oi 
less distinct of the objects both of taste and smell, as, e.g. 
of the taste of a melon, or the smell of an orange, hardly 
admits of question ; while, at the same time, it is doubtless 
true that we have less occasion to reproduce in thought the 
objects now referred to than those of sight and hearing, 
that they are recalled with less facility, and also with less 
listinctness. 

Stewards Theory. — Dugald Stewart has ingeniouslj' i iig 
gested that the reason why a sound or a taste is less readily 
conceived than an object of sight, may be that the formei 
are single detached sensations, while visible objects are com- 
plex, presenting a series of connected points of observation, 
and our conception of them as a whole is the result of many 
single conceptions, a result to which the association of ideas 
largely contributes. We more readily conceive two things 
in connection than either of them separately. On the same 
principle a series of sounds in a strain of music is more 
readily conceived than a single detached note. 

Importance of this Povjer, — The value of this power to 
the mind is inestimable. Without it, the passing moment, 
the impression or sensation of the instant, would be the sum 
total of our intellectual life, of our conscious being. The 
horizon of our mental vision would extend no further than 
our immediate present perceptions. The past would be a 
blank as dark and uncertain even as the future. Conception 
lights up the otherwise dreary waste of past existence, and 
reproducing the former scenes and objects, gives us mental 
possession of all that we have been, as well as of the present 
moment, and lays at our feet the objects of all former 
knowledge. The mind thus becomes in a measure inde 
pendent of sense and the external world. What it has once 
Been, heard, felt, becomes its permanent acquisition, even 
when the original object of perception is for ever removed. 
I may have seen the grand and stately minster, or the 
Bnowv Alp but once in all my life , but ever after it dwelie 



MEMORY. 99 

r.inong my conceptions, and in after years, on other con- 
tinents, anof amid far other scenes, that vision of beauty and 
grandeur passes before me as an angelic vision ; that succes- 
sion of sweet sounds traverses again the silent chambers of 
the brain, with all the freshness of first reality. It is only a 
conception now, but who shall estimate the worth of that 
simple power of conception ? 

The Talent for Description as affected by this Power. - 
The following remarks of Mr. Stewart illustrate happily ont 
of the many uses to which this power is subservient : 

"A talent for lively description, at least in the case o\ 
sensible objects, depends chiefly on the degree in which the 
describer possesses the power of conception. We may re 
mark, even in common conversation, a striking difference 
among individuals in this respect. One man, in attempting 
to convey a notion of any object he has seen, seems to place 
it before him, and to paint from actual perception ; another, 
although not deficient in a ready elocution, finds himself, in 
such a situation, confused and embarrassed among a number 
of particulars imperfectly apprehended, which crowd into 
his mind without any just order and connection. Nor is it 
merely to the accuracy of our descriptions that this power 
is subservient ; it contributes, more than any thing else, to 
render them striking and expressive to others, by guiding 
us to a selection of such circumstances as are most promi- 
nent and characteristic; insomuch that I think it may 
reasonably be doubted if a person would not write a happier 
description of an object from the conception than from the 
perception of it. It has often been remarked, that the per 
fection of description does not consist in a minute specifica 
tion of circumstances, but in a judicious selection of them 
and that the best rule for making the selection is to attena 
to the particulars that make the deepest impression on our 
own minds. When tne object is actually before us, it is 
^ jctremely difficult to compare the impressions which differ- 
•^nt cbxiimstances produce ; and the very thought of writing 



100 MEMORY. 

a description, would prevent the impressions which would 
otherwise take place. When we afterward conceive the ob- 
ject, the representation of it we form to ourselves, however 
lively, is merely an outline, and is made up of those circum- 
stances which really struck us most at the moment, while 
others of less importance are obliterated." 

Conceptions often Complex, — It is to be further remarked 
especting the power now under consideration, that the no- 
tion, or conception which we form of an object, by means 
of this faculty, is frequently complex. The particular per- 
ceptions and sensations formerly experienced, and now rep- 
resented, are combined, forming thus a notion of the object 
as a whole. The figure, magnitude, color, and various other 
properties, of any object, as, e. ^., a table, are objects each of ^ 
distinct and separate cognition, and as such are mentally 
reproduced, distinctly, and separately ; but when thus re- 
produced, are combined to form the complete conception of 
the table, as it lies in my mind. The notion or conception 
of the object as a whole being thus once formed, any single 
perception as, e,g.^ of color, figure, etc., is afterward suf- 
ficient to recall and represent the whole. 

Often passes for Perception. — It was remarked, in treat- 
ing of perception, that very much which passes under that 
name is in reality only conception. I hear, for example, 
a carriage passing in the street. All that I really per- 
ceive is the sound ; but that single perception recalls at 
once the various perceptions that have formerly been asso- 
ciated with it, and so there is at once reproduced in my 
mind the conception of the passing carriage. Our convic- 
tion of the existence and reality of the object thus con- 
ceived, is hardly inferior to that produced by actual and 
complete perception. / 

Correctness of our Conceptions, — In general it may be 
remarked, that our conceptions are more or less adequate 
and correct representations of the objects to which tbej/ 
relate, according as they combine the reports of moro oi 



MEMORT 101 

fewer different senses, respecting more or fewer different 
qualities^ and as these reports are more or less clear and 
distinct. 

II. Laws of Mental Reproduction. 

Conc^.ptions not uncaused. — It is evident that our con 
ception-s arise not uncaused and at hap-hazard, but accordiiii, 
to some law. There is a method about the phenomena of 
mectal reproduction. There is a reason why any particulai 
scene or event of former experience, any perception or sen- 
sation, is brought again to mind, when it is, and as it is, 
rather than some other in its place. A careful observation 
and study of the laws which regulate in general the succes- 
sion of thought, will furnish the explanation and true phi- 
losophy of mental reproduction. 

Principle of Suggestion, — Every thought which passes 
ihrough the mind is directly or indirectly connected with, 
and suggested by something which preceded ; and that 
something may be either a sensation, a perception, a concep- 
tion, or an emotion. The precedence may be either imme- 
diate or remote. Some connection there always is between 
any given thought or feeling at any moment before the 
mind, and some preceding thought or feeling, which gives 
rise to, occasions, suggests, the latter. These suggestions 
follow certain general rules or laws, which are usually called 
the laws of association. These laws, so called, are only the 
different circumstances under which the suggestions take 
place, and are termed laws only to indicate the regularitj 
and uniformity with which, under given circumstances 
given thoughts and feelings are awakened in the mind. 

This the Pasis of mental Reproduction, — It is to this 
general principle of suggestion or association that we are 
indebted for all mental reproduction. It is only as one idea 
or feeling is suggested by some other which has gone be- 
fore, and with which it is in some way, and for some reason, 
associated in our minds, that any former thought or senjsa 



102 MEMORY. 

tion is recalled, that any object which we have perceived 
or any scene through which we have passed, is mentally 
reproduced. It is thus that the sight of an object brings to 
inind occurrences connected with it in our history, that the 
aame recalls the thing, that the words of a language bring 
to mind the ideas which they denote, or the characters on 
the musical staff, the tones which they represent. 

^ot a distinct Faculty, — It has been customary to speak 
of association of ideas as a distinct faculty of the mind. It 
is not properly so ranked. It is a law of the mind rather 
than a faculty of it — a rule or method of its action in certain 
cases; and the particular power of mind to which this rule 
applies is that form of simple conception which we term 
mental reproduction. 

The Term Suggestion preferred hy Srown. — In place of 
the term association. Dr. Brown would prefer the term sug- 
gestion as more correct. To speak of the association of 
ideas implies that they have previously coexisted in the 
Aiind, and that the one now recalls the other in consequence 
of that previous coexistence. That this is often the case is 
doubtless true, but it is also true that in many cases one 
idea suggests another with which it has not previously 
been associated in our minds. It is not necessary to the 
suggestion that there should be any prior association. An 
object seen /or the first time suggests many relative concep- 
tions. The sight of a giant suggests the idea of a friend of 
diminutive stature, not because the two ideas have pre- 
viously been associated, or the two objects have coexisted, 
either in perception or conception, but because it is a law of 
the mind that one conception shall suggest another, either 
as similar, or as opposite, or in some other way related to it. 
This may be as truly a law of the mind, independent of 
association, as that light falling on the retina shall produce 
vision. It may seem mysterious that this should be so. Is 
It not equally mysterious that ideas which have formerly 
coexisted should ^ '^call each other ? The real mystery ia 



MEMORY. 103 

the recurrence in any mode, and from any source, of the idea 
without the recurrence of the external producing cause. 
Foi these reasons, Dr. Brown prefers the term suggestion 
to association. 

Tlie Term Conception preferable to either. — As regards 
the activity of the mind itself in the process of mental re- 
production, the term conception seems to me to express 
more nearly the exact state of the case than either associa- 
tion or suggestion. An idea is suggested to the mind by 
some external object ; the mind conceives the idea thus sug- 
gested. The flute which I perceive lying on the table in 
the room of my friend suggests at once to my mind the 
idea of that friend. The action of the mind in this case is 
simply an act of conception. All that the flute does — all 
that we mean when we say the flute suggests the idea of 
the friend — is simply to place the mind in such a state that 
the conception follows. Whether we speak then of the laws 
of association^ laws of suggestion^ or laws of mental concep- 
tion^ is immaterial, provided we bear in mind the real nature 
of the process as now defined. 

Question stated. — But what are the laws of association^ 
or suggestion, so-called — in other words, of mental concep- 
tion? Under what circumstances is a given conception 
awakened in the mind by some preceding conception or per- 
ception ? This is an importaiit subject of inquiry, and one 
which has not escaped the attention of philosophers. 

Primary Laws. — -It has been usual to enumerate a^ 
primary laws of suggestion, the folio wmg : resanhlance, 
contrast^ contiguity in time or place ; to which has some- 
times been added cause and effect. There can be little 
doubt that these are important laws of suggestion ; that a 
given object of thought is likely to suggest to the mind that 
which is like itself, that which is unlike, that which is con 
nected with itself in time and place, that of which it is the cause 
or the effect. Whether these principles are exhaustive, and 
whether they may not be reduced to some one general piin 
ciple comprehensive of them all, may admit of question. 



t^ 



104 MEMORY. 

Law of Similars. — To begin with resemblance. It seems 
to be a law of our nature, that Hke shall remind us of like. 
The mountain, the forest, the river, that I see in my morning 
walk to-day, remind me of similar objects that were familiar 
to my childhood. Nor is it necessary that the resemblance 
should be complete. A single point of similarity is sufficient 
to awaken the conception of objects the most remote, and, in 
oth er respects, dissimilar. I pass in the street a person with 
blue eyes, or dark hair, or having some peculiarity of ex- 
pression in the countenance, and am at once reminded of a 
very different person whom I knew years ago, or whom I 
met perhaps in another land ; yet the two may be as unlike, 
except in the one point which attracts my attention, as any 
two persons in the world. An article of dress peculiar to 
the Elizabethan age, or to the court of Louis XIV. reminds 
us of the lordly dames and courtiers, or gallant warriors of 
those periods. A single feature in the landscape, perhaps a 
single tree, or projecting crag, on the mountain side, brings 
before us the picture of a scene widely different in most re- 
spects, but presenting only this one point of resemblance to 
the scene before us. 

Not confined to Objects of Sight. — ISTor is it the objects 
of sight alone that are suggestive of similar objects. The 
other senses follow the same law. Sounds suggest similar 
sounds ; tastes, similar tastes ; and along with the sounds, 
tastes, etc., thus recalled, are awakened conceptions of many 
things having no resemblance to the suggesting object, bu 
associated in our previous perceptions with the object sug 
gested. A certain succession of m'usical sounds, for exam 
pie, recalls to the Swiss his native valley, and the moun 
tarns that shut it in, and brings back to his mind the scen( a 
of his childhood, and the peculiar customs of his father-land 
where he heard in former years that simple melody. With 
what a tram of associations is a single lame often fraught 
what power of magic lies often in a single word! 

Illustrations of other Laws. — Of the other principles o/ 



MEMORY 105 

Buggestion or associatiou which have been named, it is not 
necessary to speak minutely. Their operation is obvious* 
and indisputable. Illustrations will occur to every one. The 
palace of the king reminds us by contrast of the hovel of the 
peasant. The splendor of wealth and luxury suggests the 
wretchedness of poverty and want. The giant reminds ua 
of the dwarf, and the dwarf of the giant. On the principle 
of contiguity in time and place, the sight of an object re- 
minds us of events that have occurred in connection with it ; 
the name Napoleon suggests Waterloo, and Wellington, 
and the marshals of the empire ; St. Peter's and the Vatican 
suggest Raphael and his Transfiguration ; a book, casuall}' 
lying on my table, reminds me of the volume that formerly 
stood by its side on the shelf, and so carries me back to 
other scenes, and other days. 

In like manner, if it be not indeed the operation of the 
same principle, cause suggests the effect, and effect its cause. 
The wound reminds me of the instrument, and the instru- 
ment awakens the unpleasant conception of the wound which 
it once inflicted. 

WTiy one Conception rather than another, — Inasmuch aa 
any one conception may awaken in the mind a great variety 
of other conceptions — since a picture, for example, may re- 
call the person whose likeness it is, or the artist who painted 
it, or the friend who possesses it, or the time and place in 
which it was sketched, or the room in which it formerly 
hung, or any circumstance or event connected with it — the 
question arises, why, in any given instance, is one of these 
conceptions awakened in the mind rather than any other in 
Its stead ? It is evident that the action of the associating 
principle is not uniform, sometimes one conception being 
awakened, sometimes another. 

Secondary Laws. — In answer to this. Dr. Brown has 
shown that the action of these general and primary laws of 
Buggestion, now named, is modified by a variety of circum- 
Btances, which may be called secondary laws of suggestion, 

5* 



106 IVIEMORT. 

and which will account for the variety in question. These 
modifying circumstances are : 1. Continuance of attention. 
2. Vividness of feeling. 3. Frequency of repetition. 4. 
Lapse of time. 5. Exclusiveness of association. 6. Origi« 
nal constitutional differences. 7. State of mind at the time. 
8. State of b^»dy. 9. Professional habits. Any one of these 
circumstancf^s may so modify the action of the primary laws 
of suggestion, that one conception shall be awakened in the 
mind rather than another, by that which has preceded. 

Correctness of this View. — There can be little doubt as 
CO the correctness of this view. The attention, for example, 
which a given object or event excites at the time of its oc- 
currence, and the strength and livehness of feeling which it 
awakened in us, have very much to do, as every one knows, 
with our subsequent remembrance of that object or event. 
So also has the frequency with which the train of thought 
has been repeated — a fact illustrated in the process of com- 
mitting to memory. 

The more frequently two things come together before the 
mind, the more likely will it be, when one is again presented, 
to think of the other. In the process of learning a thing by 
rote, we repeat the lines over and over, until they become so 
associated, and linked together, that the suggestion of one 
recalls the whole. Frequently, however, we find it difficult 
to pass from one sentence to another, or from one stanza or 
paragraph to another, while we find no difficulty in complet- 
ing the sentence or paragraph once commenced. The reason 
is, we have repeated each sentence or stanza by itself m 
the process of learning, and have not connected one with 
another. The last words of one sentence, and the first 
words of another, have not been repeatedly conjomed in 
the mind — have not frequently coexisted. 

Sometimes, however, a more than usual vividness of con- 
ception will make up for the want of this frequent co- 
existence. When, for any reason, as excited feeling, or 
extraordinary interest in what we perceive, we grasp with 



MEMORY. 107 

peculiar clearness and force the idea presented, this vivid 
ness of mental conception will, of itself, insure the remem- 
brance of the object contemplated. A man, on trial for his 
life, will be likely to recollect the faces and tones of each 
Df the different witnesses on the stand, and the different 
judges and advocates, even if he never sees them afterward. 

We all know, also, that the lapse of time weakens the 
impression of any object or event upon the mind, and so 
lessens the probability of its recurrence to the thoughts. 
We more readily recall places and objects seen in a recent 
lour, than those seen a year ago. The exclusiveness of the 
connection is also an important circumstance. An air of 
music, which I have heard played or sung only on one oc- 
casion, and by one musician only, is much more likely, when 
heard again, to bring to mind the former player, than if it 
had also been ^ssociated with other occasions and other per- 
formers. Muc. \ depends, moreover, on native differences of 
temperament, on the habitual joyousness, or habitual gloom, 
which may pervade the spirits, on the lights and shadows 
which passing events may cast, in quick succession, on the 
mind, as good or bad news, the arrival of a friend, the fail- 
ure of an enterprise, a slight derangement of any of the 
bodily functions, or even the state of the atmosphere. All 
these circumstances have much to do with the question, 
whether one conception or another shall be awakened in 
the mind by any object presented to its thoughts. 

These Laws distinguished as Objective and Subjective. — 
It will be observed that the primary laws of suggestion, 
so called, are such as arise from the relations which our 
thoughts sustain to each other, while the secondary are such 
as arise from the relations which they sustain to ourselves, 
the thinking subjects. Hence the former have been called 
objective^ the latter, subjective laws. 

Possibility of reducing the primary Laws to one com- 
'prehensive Principle, — I have already suggested that pos- 
sibly the primary laws admit of being reduced to some one 



108 MEMORY. 

general and comprehensive principle. This is a point de< 
serving attention. Were we required to name some one 
principle which should comprehend these several specific 
laws of association, it would be that of the prior existence 
m the mind of the suggesting and the suggested idea. The 
two conceptions have, for some reason, and at sorae time, 
stood together before the mind, and hence the one recalls 
the other. It seems to be a general law of thoviqht^ thai 
vahatever has been perceived or conceived in connection 
with some other object of perception or thought^ is after- 
ward suggestive of that other. The relation may be that 
of part to whole, of resemblance, of contiguity, or contrast, 
or cause ; it may be a natural or an artificial relati'^n ; what- 
ever it is that serves as the connecting link between one 
thought and another, as they come before the mJnd at first, 
that will also serve as the ground of subsequent fM^^mection, 
when either of these thoughts shall present itself again to 
the mind. The one will suggest the other. 

Application of this Principle to the several La^s of Sug- 
gestion, — Why is it, for example, that things contiguous in 
time and place suggest each other ? In consequepce of that 
contiguity they were viewed by the mind in connertion with 
each other ; as, e, g,^ the handle, and the door to which it 
belongs, the book, and its neighbor on the shelf. It is be 
cause Napoleon and his marshals, Wellington and Waterloo, 
have been presented together to the thoughts, that or>e now 
recalls the other. For the same reason the light hair and 
blue eyes of the person passing in the street recall the friend 
of former years ; that peculiarity of hair and of eyes has 
been, in my mind, previously connected with the conception 
of my friend. So also a part suggests the whole with which 
it has been ordinarily connected, as, for example, the crystal 
and the watch. 

Further Application of the same Principle, — On the 
same principle cause and efiect are naturally suggestive. 
We have been accustomed to observe the elisiou of 4 spark 



MEM OKI'. 109 

in connection with the forcible collision of flint and steel 
and whenever we have observed the application of fire to 
gunpowder, certain consequences have uniformly attracted 
our attention ; hence the one of these things awakens im- 
mediately in our minds the conception of the other, with 
which it has previously coexisted. For the same reason the 
instrument suggests the idea of the wound, and the wound 
of the instruijient. The sight of a rose, and the sensation 
of fragrance, have usually coexisted ; hence either recalls 
the other. 

The connection in this case is natural. Let us suppose a 
case in which it shall be arbitrary, or artificial. Suppose I 
happen to hold a rose in my hand, at the same moment a 
certain unusual noise is heard in the street, or at the mo- 
ment when an eclipse of the sun becomes visible ; on seeing 
the rose the next day I am instantly reminded of the noise, 
or of the eclipse, that was connected with it in my previous 
perception. 

Application to the Law of Opposites, — On the same 
principle opposites also suggest each other. They sustain a 
certain relation to each other in our thoughts, and are in a 
sense necessary to each other in thought, as, e. g.^ white and 
black, crooked and straight, tall and short ; which are 
relative ideas, neither of which is complete by itself without 
|he other ; the one the complement of the other ; each, so 
to speak, the extreme term of a comparison. As such they 
stand together before the mind, in its ordinary perceptions, 
and hence the one almost of necessity recalls the other. 

The same Principle suggested by Dr, JBroion, — The pos- 
sibility of reducing the laws of association to one common 
principle, as now attempted, namely that of prior coexist- 
ence in the mind, has not altogether escaped the notice of 
philosophers. Dr. Brown, in more than one passage, ad- 
vances the idea, that on a sufficiently minute analysis " al] 
suggestion may be found to depend on prior coexistence, or, 
at least, on such immediate proximity, as is itself, very pro- 



no MEMOJiY 

bably, a modification of coexistence." In order to thii 
nice reduction, however, he adds, we must take into ac- 
count " the influence of emotions, and other feehngs that 
are very difierent from ideas ; as when an analogous object 
suggests an analogous object by the infl lence of an emotion 
or sentiment, which each separately may have produced 
before, and which is therefore common to both." As ilius^ 
rative of this, he refers, among others, to cases of remote 
resemblance ; as when, " for example, the whiteness of 
untrodden snow brings to our mind the innocence of an 
unpolluted heart ; or a fine morning of spring, the cheerful 
freshness of youth." In such cases, he says, " though there 
may never have been in the mind any proximity of the very 
images compared, there may have been a proximity of each 
to an emotion of some sort, which, as common to both, 
might render each capable, indirectly, of suggesting the 
other. The same principle he applies to suggestion by con- 
trast, as when the sight of a person with a remarkably long 
nose brings to mind some one whom we have seen with a 
nose as remarkable for brevity ; the common feeling in the 
two cases being that of surprise or wonder at the pecuUarity 
3f this feature of the countenance. 

TJieory of Mohan. — Mahan, in his Intellectual Philosophy, 
carries out the suggestion of Dr. Brown, and makes the 
emotion awakened in common by two or more objects, the 
aole law, or ground of association. One object recalls an 
other only by means of the feeling or state of mind com 
mon to both. 

This View questionable, — That this is the philosophy of 
the suggesting principle in those cases in which two object 
have not previously coexisted in the mind— that is, ir 
cases of suggestion, and not of association properly — I am 
disposed to admit, but that it is the philosophy of associa- 
tion^ strictly speaking, that it is the reason why objects 
which have been viewed together by the n: ind should after- 
ward recall each other, is to be questioned. It seems to bv 



MEMORY. Ill 

an established law of mental action that objects once viewed 
m connection by the mind, afterward retain that connection. 
This is a grand and simple law of thought. I doubt whethei 
any explanation can make it more simple, whether any 
thing is gained by calling in the influence of emotion to ac- 
count for it. The emotion may, or may not, be the cause 
why objects, once coexistent in the mind, recall each other, 
[t is enough that the simple law of previous coexistence, as 
now stated, covers the whole ground, and accounts for all 
the phenomena of mental association. 

The same Rule given by Aristotle, — Long before the 
days of Brown and his successors, this same law had sug- 
gested itself to one of the closest thinkers, and most acute 
observers of mental pnenomena, whom the world has evei 
seen, as a principle comprehensive of all the specific laws of 
association. Aristotle — as quoted by Hamilton — expresses 
the rule in the following terms : Thoughts^ which have ai 
any time^ recent or remote^ stood to each other in the relation 
of coexistence^ or immediate consecution^ do^ when severally 
reproduced^ tend to reproduce each other. Under this gen- 
eral law he includes the specific ones of similars, contraries 
and coadjacents, as comprehending all the possible relatione 
of things to each other. 

Further Question, — View of MosenJcranz, — It may still 
be questioned whether the specific laws of association, as 
usually given, viz., resemblance, contrast, contiguity, and 
cause, are a complete and exhaustive list. Are there not re- 
lations of things to each other, and so relations of thought, 
which do not fall under any of the categories now named ? 
A distinguished psychologist of the Hegelian school, Rosen 
kranz, denies even that there are any laws of association. 
Law is found, he says, where the manifoldness still evinces 
unity, to which the manifold and accidental are subject 
But association is not subject to any such unity. It is a fi-ee 
process. There are indeed certain limitations or categories 
of thought, but thes'"^ so-called laws of association are not to 



112 MEMORY. 

be confounded witL those categories ; they are not exhaus 
tive of them. Why not also introduce the law by which 
we pass from quality to quantity, being to appearance, the 
universal to the particular, the end to the means, etc., etc, ? 
In short, all metaphysical and logical categories lay claim to 
be included in the list of such laws. No one can calculate 
the possible connections of one conception with another 
Each is, for us, the middle point of a universe from whicb 
we can go forth on all sides. What diverse trains of 
thought, for example, may the Strasburg minster awakea 
in my mind : the material of which it is built, the architect, 
the middle ages, the gothic style, etc., etc. There is, in a 
word, no law of association. 

Objections to this View, — Such, in substance, is the view 
maintained by this able writer. We cannot altogether coin- 
cide with it. That the specific laws of Aristotle, Hume, and 
Brown, are not exhaustive, may very likely be true ; that 
there is no law, no unity to which this manifoldness of con- 
ception i? subject, is yet to be shown. Take the very case 
supposed. The gothic minster of Strasburg reminds me 
of the gothic style of architecture. What is that but an 
instance under the law of similarity ? It reminds me of the 
middle ages. What is that but the operation of the law 
of contiguity in time? It brings to mind the architect. 
What is that but the relation of cause to efiect ? . Or, if I 
think of the material of which the building .is composed, 
the marble of this minster reminding me of the class, marble, 
does not that again fall under the relation of a part to the 
whole, which is comprehended under the general law of co- 
adjacence, or contiguity in space? So quality and quantity 
matter and form, being and appearance, as parts of a com- 
prehensive whole, recall each other. The instances given, 
then, so far from proving that there is no law of association 
actually faU under the specific laws enumerated. 

The Law of Contiguity includes what, — It is contended 
that this gives a wider extension to the law of contiguity iu 



MEMORY. US 

time and space than properly belongs to it. I reply, net 
wider than is intended by those who make use of this ex- 
pression. Aristotle, the earliest writer who attempts any 
classification of the laws of suggestion, distinctly includes 
under the law of coadjacence whatever stand as parts of the 
same whole, as, e. g,^ parts of the same building, traits of the 
same character, species of the same genus, the sign and the 
thing signified, difierent wholes of the same part, correlate 
terms, as the abstract and concrete, etc., etc. 

Reference to the subjective Laws, — If it still is asked why 
does the minster of Strasburg, or any given object, suggest 
one of these several conceptions, and not some other in its 
place ? the reason for this must doubtless be sought in the state 
of the mind at the time; in other words, in those subjective 
or secondary laws of suggestion, of which we have already 
spoken, as given by Brown and others. Aristotle has more 
concisely answered the question in the important rule which 
he adds as supplementary of his general law ; viz., that, of 
two thoughts, one tends to suggest the other, in proportion, 
1. To its comparative importance ; 2. Its comparative interest. 
For the first reason, the foot is more likely to suggest the 
head than the head the foot. For the second reason, the 
dog is more likely to suggest the master than the mastei 
the dog. ^ 

§IL— Mental Recognition, as Distinguished from Mental 

Reproduction. 

I. General Character of this Process. 

The Faculty as thus far considered, — l^\iVi^ far we have 
considered the faculty of mental representation only under 
one of its forms, viz., as reproductive. By the operation of 
this power, the intuitions of sense are replaced before the 
mind, in the absence of the original objects ; images, so to 
speak, of the former objects of perception are brought out 
from the dark back-ground of the past, and thrown m relief 



1I4 MEMORY. 

upon the menial canvas. Picture after picture thus comes 
up, and passes away. The mind has the power of tiaus re- 
producing for itself, according to laws of suggestion already 
considered, the objects of its former perception. This it is 
constantly doing. No small part of our thinking is the 
simple reproduction of what has been already, in some 
form, before the mind. 

An additional Element, — The intuitions of sense, thus 
replaced in the absence of the external objects, present 
themselves to the mind as mere conceptions, involving no 
reference to ourselves as the perceiving subject, nor to the 
time, place, and circumstances of the original perception. 
But suppose now this latter element to be superadded to 
the former ; that along with the conception or recalling of 
the object, there is also the conception of ourselves as per- 
ceiving, and of the circumstances under which it was per- 
ceived ; in a word, the recalling of the subjective along with 
the objective element of the original perception, and we have 
now that form of mental representation which we term 
recognitive^ or mental recognition. 

The two Forms compared and distinguished, — The two 
taken together, the reproduction, and the recognition, con 
stitute what is ordinarily called memory, which involves, 
when closely considered, not only the reproduction, in 
thought, of the former object of perception, but also the 
consciousness of having ourselves perceived the same. The 
conception is given as before, but it is no longer mere con- 
ception in the abstract, standing by itself; it is connected 
now by Unks of time, place, and circumstance, with our own 
personal history. It is this subjective element that consti- 
tutes the essential characteristic of memory proper, or men 
tal recognition, as distinguished from mere conception, oi 
mental reproduction. 

Specification of Time and Place, — It is not necessary 
that the specific time and place when and where we pre- 
viously perceived the object, or received the impression. 



MEMORY. 115 

shoul J be recalled along with the object or impression ; thia 
may or may not be. More frequently, perhaps, these do recur 
to the mind, and the object itself is recalled or suggested by 
means of these specific momenta ; but this is not essential to 
the act of memory. It is enough that we recognize the 
representation or conception, now before the mind, as, in 
general, an object of former cognition, a previous possession 
of the mind, and not a new acquisition. 

Not of necessity voluntary, — Nor is it necessary to the 
feet of memory, that this recurrence and recognition of 
former perceptions and sensations, as objects of thought, 
should be the result of special volition on our part. It may 
be quite involuntary. It may take place unbidden and un- 
sought, the result of casual suggestion. 

Distinction of Terms, — Memory is usually distinguished 
trom remembrance^ and also from recollection. Memory is, 
more properly, the power or faculty, remembrance the ex- 
ercise of that power in respect to particular objects and 
events. When this exercise is voluntary- — when we set our- 
selves to recall what has nearly or quite escaped us, to re-col- 
lect^ as it were, the scattered materials of our former con- 
sciousness — we designate this voluntary process by the term 
recollection. We recollect only what is at the moment out 
of mind, and what we wish to recall. 

Possihility of recalling, — But here the question aiise? 
how it is possible, by a voluntary effort, to recall what ii 
once gone from the mind. Does not the very fact of a vo- 
lition imply that we have already in mind the thing willed 
and wished for ? How else could we will to recall it ! 
This is a philosophical puzzle with which any one, who 
chooses, may amuse himself. I have forgotten, for instance, 
the name of a person : I seek to recall it ; to recall what ? 
you may ask. That name. What name ? Now I do not 
know what name ; if I did, I should have no occasion to re 
call it. And yet, in another sense, I do know what it is that 
I have forgotten. I know that it is a name, and I kno^i 



116 MEMORY. 

^hose name it is; the name, viz., of this particular persoa 
And this is all I need to know in order to have a distinct* 
definite object of volition before my mind. 

The Mode of Operation, — The process through which 
the mind passes in such a case, is, to dwell upon some cir 
cumstances not forgotten, that are intimately connected 
with the missing idea, and through these, as so many con 
cecting links, to pass over, if possible, to the thing sought. 
I cannot, for example, recall the name, but I remember the 
names of other persons of the same family, class, or profes- 
sion, or I remember that it begins with the letter B, and 
then think over all the names I know that begin with that 
letter ; and, in this way, seek to recall, by association, the 
aame that has escaped. 

Memory not an immediate Knowledge, — It has been held 
by some that memory gives us an immediate knowledge of 
the past. This is the view of Dr. Reid. If, by immediate 
knowledge, we mean knowledge of a thing as existing, and 
as it is in itself — nothing intervening between it as a present 
reahty, and our direct cognizance of it — then not in this 
sense is memory an immediate knowledge ; for a past event 
is no longer existent, and cannot be known as such, or as it 
is in itself; it no longer ^5, but only was. Hence an imme- 
diate knowledge of it, is, as Sir William Hamilton affirms, 
a contradiction. Still, we may know the past as it was^ not 
less really and positively than we know the present as it is. 
I as really know that I sat at this table yesterday as I know 
that I sit here now. I am conscious of being here now. I 
was conscious of being here then. That consciousness is 
not to be impeached in either case. If the senses deceived 
me yesterday, they may deceive me to-day. If consciousness 
testified falsely then, it may now. But if I was indeed here 
yesterday, and if I knew then that I was here, and that 
knowledge was certain and positive, then I know now that 
I was here yesterday, for memory recognizes what would 
otherwise be the mere conception of to-day, as identical 



MEMCET. 117 

with the positive knowledge of yesterday. Memory may 
possibly be mistaken as to the so-called positive knowledge 
of yesterday ; and so sense may be mistaken as to the so- 
called positive knowledge of the present moment. 

Belief attending Memory, — The remarks of Dr. Reid 
on this point are worthy of note. " Memory is always ac- 
companied with the belief of that which we remember, as 
perception is accompanied with the belief of that which we 
perceive, and consciousness with the belief of that whereof 
we are conscious. Perhaps in infancy, or in disorder of mind, 
things remembered may be confounded with those which 
are merely imagined ; but in mature years, and in a sound 
state of mind, every man feels that he must beHeve what he 
distinctly remembers, though he can gii^e no other reason 
tor his belief, but that he remembers the thing distinctly ; 
whereas, when he merely imagines a thing ever so distinctly 
he has no belief of it upon that account.. 

This belief, which we have from distinct memory, we ac 
count real knowledge, no less certain than if it was grounded 
on demonstration ; no man, in his wits, calls it in question, 
or will hear any argument against it. The testimony of 
witnesses in causes of life and death depends upon it, and 
all the knowledge of mankind of past events is built on this 
foundation. There are cases in which a man's memory is 
less distinct and determinate, and where he is ready to allow 
that it may have failed him ; but this does not in the least 
weaken its credit, when it is perfectly distinct." 

Importance of this Faculty, — The importance oi mem- 
ory as a power of the mind, is shown by the simple fact> 
that, but for it, there could be no consciousness of continued 
existence, none of personal identity, for memory is our' 
only voucher for the fact that we existed at all at any 
previous moment. Without this faculty, each separate in- 
stant of life would be a new existence, isolated, disconnected 
with aught before or after ; nay, there would, in that case, 
«jcarcely be any consciousness of even the present existence. 



118 MEMORY. 

for we are conscious only as we are cognizant of vhange>^ 
says Hamilton, and there is involved in it the idea of tho 
latest past along with the present. Memory, then, is essen- 
tial to all intelligent mental action, whether intellectual, sen- 
sational, or voluntary. The ancients seem to have been 
aware of this, when they gave it the name iivtjiitj (from 
uvTjjLUig^ fjivaofjiat)^ appellations of the mind itself^ as being, in 
&ct, the chief characteristic faculty of the mind. 

II. What is implied in an Act of Memory. 

Several Conditions. — Every act of memory involves 
these several conditions: 1. Present existence. 2. Past 
existence. 3. Mental activity at some moment of that 
past existence. 4. The recurrence to the mind of some- 
thing thus thought, perceived, or felt. 5. Its recognition 
as a past or former thought or impression, and that our 
own. These last, the recurrence and the recognition, are 
strictly the essential elements of memory, yet the others are 
implied in it. In order to my remembering, for example, an 
occurrence of yesterday, I must exist at the present time, 
else I cannot remember at the present time ; I must have 
existed yesterday, else there can be no memory of yester- 
day ; my mind must have been active then, else there will 
be nothing to remember ; the thoughts, perceptions, sensa- 
tions, then occupying the mind, must now recur, else it is 
the same as if they had never been ; they must recur, not 
as new thoughts and impressions, but as old ones, else I no 
longer remember, but only conceive or perceive. 

III. Qualities of Memory. 

Distinctions of Stewart and Wayland. — It has been 
customary to designate certain qualities as essential to a 
good memory. Susceptibility, retentiveness, and readiness, 
are thus distinguished by Mr. Stewart ; the first denoting 
the facility with which the mind acquires ; the second, the 
permanence with which it retains ; and the third, the quick 



MEMORY. HP 

ness witli which it recalls and applies its original acquisi- 
tions. And these qualities are rarely united, he adds, 
in the same person. The memory which is susceptible 
and ready, is not commonly very retentive. Dr. Wayland 
makes the same distinction. Some men, he says, retain 
thek knowledge more perfectly than they recall it. Others 
have their knowledge always at command. Some men 
acquire with great rapidity, but soon forget what they 
have learned. Others acquire with difficulty, but retair; 
tenaciously. 

Objections to this View, — Although supported by such 
authority, it admits of question whether this distinction is 
strictly valid. Facility of acquisition, the readiness with 
which the mind perceives truth, is hardly to be reckoned as 
an attribute of memory. It is a quality of mind, a quality 
possessed in diverse degrees by different persons, doubtless, 
but not a quality of mind in its distinctive capacity and office 
of remembering. It is no part, psychologically considered, 
of the function of m^ental reproduction. It is essen^^ial, in- 
deed, to the act of memory that there should be something 
to remember, but the acquisition of the thing remembered, and 
the remembering, are two distinct and different mental acts; 
nor is it of any consequence to the mind, in remembering, 
whether the original acquisition was made with more or less 
facility. Indeed, so far as that bears upon the case at all^ 
facility of acquisition, as even these writers admit, is likelj 
to be rather a hindrance than a help to subsequent remem- 
brance, since what is most readily acquired is no^ most 
readily recalled. 

The Mind retentive in what Sense, — Nor is it altogether 
proper to speak of retentiveness as a quality of memory — a 
quality which may pertain to it in a greater or less degree 
in different cases. The truth is, all memory is retentive, or, 
more properly, retentiveness is itself memory. It is a 
quality of mind ; a power or faculty possessed in different 
degrees by different persons; and the power which the mind 



120 MEMORY. 

possesses of retaining thus, wholly, or in part, what passes 
before it, is the faculty of memory. But in what sense does* 
the mind retain anythmg which has once occupied its 
thoughts ? Not, of course, in the sense in which a hook 
retains the hat and coat that are hung upon it, ready to be 
taken down when wanted. We are not to conceive of the 
mind as a convenient receptacle, in which may be stowed aw^ay 
all manner of old thoughts, sensations, impressions, as olc* 
clothes are put by in a press, or guns in an armory. Not in 
any such sense is the mind retentive. What we mean, 
when we say the mind is retentive, is simply this, that it is 
in its power to repossess itself of what has once passed be- 
fore it, to regain a thought or impression it has once had. 
And this is done by the operation of those laws of sugges* 
tion already considered. That, and that only is retained by 
the mind, w^hich under the appropriate circumstances is by 
the principle of suggestion recalled to the mind. We are 
Qot to distinguish, then, the power to retain and the power 
to recall, as two separate things ; nor, for the same reason, 
can we conceive of a memory that is other than retentive; 
or that is retentive but not ready. So far as these ex 
pressions denote any real distinction, it amounts simply to 
i^his, that some minds are more retentive than others ; in 
ether words, more susceptible of the influence of the sug- 
gesting principle in recalling ideas that have once l)een 
before them. Such a difierence undoubtedly exists. Some 
remember much more readily and extensively than othera 
This may be owing, partly, to some difference of mental 
constitution and endowment; but more frequently to differ 
ences of mental habit and culture. It is not necessary to 
refer again to the laws of mental reproduction which ha^ o 
been already discussed. It is sufficient to say, that the more 
clearly any fact or truth is originally apprehended^ and ths 
more deeply it interests the mind^ the more readily will ix 
subsequently recur, and the longer will it be retained 



MEMORY. rjl 

rV". Memory in Relation to Intellectual Strength 

The common Opinion. — The question has arisen, how 
far the power of memory may be regarded as a test of in- 
tellectual ability. The opinion has been somewhat preva- 
lent, that a more than usual development of this faculty is 
likely to be attended with a corresponding deficiency in 
«ome other mental power, and especially that it is inconi 
patible with a sound judgment. To this opiniron I cannot 
subscribe. Doubtless it is true that many persons, deficient 
m the power of accurate discrimination, have possessed won- 
derful power of memory. The mind, in such cases, undis- 
ciplined, uncultivated, with little inventive and self-moving 
power, lies passive and open to the influence of every chance 
suggestion from without, as the lyre is put in vibration by 
the stray winds that sweep across its strings. Facts and 
incidents of no value, without number, and without order^ 
are thrown into relief upon the confused background of the 
past, as sea-weed, sand, and shells are heaped by the un- 
meaning waves upon the shore. 

But if a weak mind may possess a good memory, it is 
equally true, that a strong and w^ell disciplined mind is sel- 
dom deficient in it. Men of most active and commanding 
intellect have been men also of tenacious and accurate 
memory. Napoleon was a remarkable instance of this. So 
also was the philosopher Leibnitz. While, then, we cannot 
regard the memory as a test of intellectual capacity, neither 
can it be coniudered incompatible with, or unfavorable to, 
mental strength. On the contrary, we can hardly look foi 
any considerable '^^gree of mental vigor and power where 
this faculty is essentially deficient. 

Memory as affected by the Art of Printing. — It is re- 
marked by Mi^s Edgeworth, and the remark is noticed with 
approval by Dugald Stewart, that the invention of printing, 
by placing books within the reach of all classes of people, 
has lowered the value of those extraordinary powers of 

6 



122 MEMORl. 

memory which some of the learned were accustomed to dw 
play in former times. A man who had read, and who conld 
repeat, a few manuscripts, was then not merely a remarkable, 
but a very useful man. It is quite otherwise now. There 
is no occasion now for any such exercise of memory. Hence 
instances of extraordinary memory are of unfrequent oo 
currence. 

Failure of Memory accompanies failure cf nventak 
Power. — A decline of mental vigor, whether produced by 
disease or age, is usually attended with loss of memory to 
some extent. The first symptoms of this failure are usually 
forgetfulness of proper names and dates, and sometimes of 
words in general. A stroke of palsy frequently produces 
this result, and in such cases the name sometimes suggests 
the object, while the object no longer recalls the name. 
This is probably owing to the fact that the sign, being of 
less consequence than the thing signified, and making less 
impression on the mind, is more readily forgotten ; hence 
the name, if suggested, recalls the thing, while, at the same 
time, the thing may not recall the name. In general, we 
pass more readily from the sign to the thing signified, thai 
the reverse, and for the reason now given. Mr. Stewar*. 
remarks, that this loss of proper names incident to old men, 
is chiefly observable in men of science, or those much occu- 
pied with important afiairs — a fact resulting, he thinks, 
partly from their habits of general thought, and partly froLi 
their want of constant practice in that trivial conversatia^ 
which is every moment recalling particulars to the mind. 

The Memory of the Aged. — In the principles which ha>id 
been advanced, we find an explanation, I think, of son\« 
facts respecting memory, which every one has noticed, bat 
of which the philosophy may not be at first sight appareiit. 
Why is it that aged people forget ? that, as we grow old, 
while perhaps other powers of the mind are still vigorous, tHe 
memory begins to lose its tenacity? Not, I suspect, from any 
Bpeciai change which the brain undergoes, for why should such 



MEMORf. 123 

changes affect this faculty more than any other? I shouM 
seek the explanation in a failure of one or other of the con- 
ditions already mentioned as essential to a good memory ; 
either in the want of a sufficiently frequent coexistence of 
associated ideas, or else in the want of a sufficiently vivid 
conception of them when presented ; or, more likely, in 
both. And so the facts would indicate. Age involves usu- 
ally the gradual failure and decay of the powers of percep 
don ; the ear fails to report what is said, the eye what ie, 
passing in space ; and as memory is dependent on prioi 
perception, of course a diminished activity of the one brings 
about a diminished activity of the other. In proportion as 
this ensues, the mind's interest in passing events is likely to 
fail, for what is no longer clearly apprehended no longer 
awakens the same interest and attention as formerly. This 
directly affects the vividness of conception, and indirectly 
also reacts upon the frequency of coexistence, for what we 
do not clearly apprehend, nor feel much interest in, will not 
be likely often to recur to mind, nor shall we dwell upon it 
when presented. There is thus brought about, by the 
mutual action and reaction of the causes now specified, a 
failure more or less complete of the essential conditions of 
a retentive memory. 

The old man dwells accordingly much in the past. Hia 
life is behind him, and not in advance. He is unobservant 
of passing events, because he neither clearly apprehends 
them, now that his connection with the outer world is in a 
measure interrupted by the decay of sense, nor does he 
much care about them, for the same reason. His attention 
and interest, withdrawn in a manner from these, revert to the 
past. Those things he remembers, the sports and compan 
ions of his youth, and the stirring events of his best and 
most active years, for those things have been frequently as- 
sociated in his mind, linked with each other, and with aD 
the past of his life, and they have deeply interested him 
Hence they are remembered while yesterday is forgotten. 



124 MEMORY. 

Varieties of Memory, — Wliy is it, you ask, that memory 
seems to select for itself now one and now another field of 
operation, one man remembering dates, another events or 
facts in history, another words or pages of a book, while id 
each case the memory of other things, of every thing that 
lies beyond or without the favorite range of topics, is de- 
fective? Manifestly for much the same reason already 
given. The mind has its favorite subjects of investigation 
and thought ; to these it frequently recurs, and dwells on 
them with interest ; there is, consequently, frequency of co- 
existence, and vividness of conception — the very conditions 
of retentiveness — while, at the same time, the mind be- 
ing preoccupied with the given subjects, and the attention 
and interest withdrawn from other things, the memory of 
other things is proportionably deficient. We remember, in 
other words, just those things best, in which we are most 
interested, and with which we have most to do. 

This explains why we forget names so readily. We have 
more to do with^ and are more interested in, persons^ thai? 
their names ; the latter we have occasion to think of mud 
less often than the former. The sign occurs less frequently 
than the thing signified, 

V. Cultivation of Memory. 

The principles already advanced furnish a clue to the 
proper and successful cultivation of the memory. Like all 
other powers, this may be cultivated, and to a wonderful de- 
gree ; and, like all other powers, it gains strength by use^ by 
exercise. The first and chief direction, then, if you would 
cultivate and strengthen this faculty of the mind, is, exerciai 
it ; train it to do its work — to do it quickly, easily, accura- 
tely, and well — as you train yourself to handle the keys o1 
an instrument, or to add up a column of figuies with prompt 
ness and accuracy. 

To be more specific. — As regards any particular thin^ 
ivhiet yon w\^h to remember: 1. Grasp it fully, clearly, defin 



MEMORY. 125 

itely m the mind ; be sure you have it exactly — it^ and not 
something like it or something about it. 2. Connect it wilb 
other things that are known ; suffer it to link itself with other 
ideas and impressions already in the mind, that you may have 
something to recall it by. 3. Frequently revert to it, until 
you are sure that it has become a permanent possession, and 
one which you can at any time recall by any one of numerous 
connecting links. In this way you secure the two conditions 
already specified as essential, viz., frequency of coexistence, 
and vividness of conception. 

Systems of artificial Memory, — A thing is recalled bv 
the suggestion of any coexisting thought or feeling. Ob- 
serving this, ingenious men have availed themselves of the 
principle of association to construct various mechanical or 
artificial systems of memory, usually termed mnemonics. 
The principle of the construction is this : should you see an 
elm or an oak-tree, or hear a particular tune whistled, at the 
same time that you were going through a demonstration in 
Euclid, you would be likely to think of the tree or the tune 
whenever next you had occasion to repeat that demonstra- 
tion. The sight of the diagram would recall the associated 
object. They stand together in your mind afterward. This 
we have already found to be the groundwork and chief ele 
ment of all association of ideas and feelings, viz., prior co- 
existence in the mind. Suppose, now, you wish to fix in the 
mind the list of English kings. Make out a correspondinsf 
list of simple figures, or images of objects, giving each its 
invariable place in relation to the series: No. 1, a pump; 
No. 2. a goose, etc., till you reach a sufficient number, say a 
hundred. These are committed to memory, fixed indelibly in 
the mind. You then associate with those figures your Eng 
lish kings ; Charles I. stands by the pump ; Charles EL 
pursues the goose ; James hugs the bear, and so on. 
These things thus once firmly linked together, remain after 
ward associated, and the figure serves at once to recall the 
associate monarch und to ^x his place in the series. The 



126 MEMORY. 

same series of figures, of course, will serve for any nuun t 
of different series of events, personages, etc., which are lO 
be remembered. 

Utility questioned, — It may be seriously questioned, I 
think, whether such systems are of real value ; whether 
they do not really weaken the memory and throw it into 
disuse, by departing from the ordinary laws and methods 
of suggestion, and substituting a purely artificial, arbitrary 
and mechanical process ; whether, moreover, they really ac- 
complish what they propose; whether, since the signs or 
figures have no natural relation to each other, and none to 
the things signified, but only the arbitrary relation imposed 
by the system, it is not really as difficult to fix the connec- 
tion of the two things in your mind, e.^., to remember that 
Charles the Second is represented by a dog or by a goose, 
as it would be simply, and in the natural way, to remember 
the things themselves without any such association. 

Extmfit to which the Memory may he cultivated, — The 
extent to which the cultivation of the memory may be car 
ried by due training and care, is a topic worthy of some at- 
tention. Men of reflection and thought, and generally men 
of studious habits, literary men and authors, do not, for the 
most part, rely so much upon the memory as men of a more 
practical cast and of business pursuits ; for this reason, viz., 
the want of due exercise, this faculty of their minds is not 
in the most favorable circumstances for development. Some 
striking exceptions, however, we shall have occasion pres* 
ently to mention. 

It has been already remarked, that prior to the art of 
printing, the cultivation of the memory was an object of far 
greater importance, to those who were destined for public 
life, than it is in modern times, and consequently instances 
of remarkable memory are much more frequently to be met 
with among the ancients than among the men of our times, 
The same remark wiL apply to men of different pursuits in 



MEMORY 127 

•iny age : the more one has occasion to employ the memory, 
the more striking will be its development. 

Instamies of extraordinary Memory. — Cyrus, it is said, 
knew the name of every officer, Pliny has it of every soldier, 
that served under him. Themistocles could call by name 
each one of the twenty thousand citizens of Athens. Horten- 
sius could sit all day at an auction, and at evening give aa 
account from memory of every thing sold, the purchaser, and 
the price. Muretus saw at Padua a young Corsican, sayt? 
Mr. Stewart, who could repeat, without hesitation, thirty-six 
thousand names in the order in which he heard them, and 
then reverse the order and proceed backward to the first. 

Dr. Wallis of Oxford, on one occasion, at night, in bed, 
proposed to himself a number of fifty-three places, and found 
its square root to twenty-seven places, and, without writinp 
down numbers at all, dictated the result from memory twenty 
days afterward. It was not unusual with him to perform aritli- 
metical operations in the dark, as the extraction of roots^ e.g.. 
to forty decimal places. The distinguished Euler, blind fi*om 
early life, had always in his memory a table of the first six 
powers of all numbers, from one to one hundred. On one oc- 
casion two of his pupils, calculating a converging series, oi? 
reaching the seventeenth term, found their results differing 
by one unit at the fiftieth figure, and in order to decide which 
was correct, Euler went over the whole in his head, and his 
decision was found afterward to be correct. Pascal forgot 
nothing of what he had read, or heard, or seen. Menage, at 
seventy-seven, commemorates, in Latin verses, the favor of 
the gods, in restoring to him, after partial eclipse, the full 
powers of memory which had adorned his earlier life. 

The instances now given are mentioned by Mr. Stewart ; 
but perhaps the most remarkable instance of great memory, 
in modern times, is the case of the celebrated Magliabechi^ 
librarian of the Duke of Tuscany. He would inform any 
one who consulted him, not only who had directly treated 
of any particular subject, but who had indirectly touched 



1^8 MEMORY 

upon it in treating of other subjects, co Luo numbtjr of jjor* 
haps one hundred different authors, giving the name of the 
author, the name of the book, the words, often the page, 
where they were to be found, and with the greatest exactness. 
To test his memory, a gentleman of Florence lent him at 
one time a manuscript he had prepared for the press, and, 
some time afterward, went to him with a sorrowful face, and 
pretended to have lost his manuscript by accident. The 
poor author seemed inconsolable, and begged Magliabechi 
to recollect what he could, and write it down. He assured 
the unfortunate man that he would, and setting about it, 
wrote out the entire manuscript without missing a ^ord. 
He had a local memory also, knew where every book 
stood. One day the Grand Duke sent for him to inquire if 
he could procure a book which was very scarce. " No, sir," 
answered Magliabechi ; " it is impossible : there is but one in 
the world ; that is in the Grand Seignior's library at Constan- 
tinople, and is the seventh hooh^ on the seventh sthelf^ on the. 
right hand as you go in.^^ 

VI. Effects of Disease on the Memory. 

Forgetfuhiess of certain Objects. — Of the effect of certain 
forms of disease, and also of age, in weakening the power of 
remembering names, I have already spoken. There are 
other effects, occasionally produced by disease upon thia 
faculty of the mind, which are not so readily explained. In 
gome cases, a certain class of objects, or the knowledge of 
certain persons, or of a particular language or some part of 
a language, as substantives, e. ^., seems to be lost to the 
mind; in other cases, a certain portion of life is obliterated 
from the recollection. In cases of severe injury to the head, 
persons have forgotten some particular language; others 
have been unable to recall afterward the names of the most 
common objects, while the memory was at no loss for adjec- 
tives. A surgeon meutioned by Dr. Abercrombie, so far re- 
covered from a fall a^ to give special directions respecting hia 



MEMORY. 129 

own treatment, yet, for several days, lost all idea of having 
either a wife or children. The case of Mr. Tennent, who oh 
recovering from apparent death, lost all knowledge of his 
past life, and was obliged to commence again the study ot 
the alphabet, until after considerable time his knowledge 
suddenly returned to him, is too well known to require 
minute description. 

Former Objects recalled. — In other instances, precisely 
the reverse occurs. Disease brings back to mind what has 
been long forgotten. Thus, persons in extreme sickness, or 
at the point of death, not unfrequently converse in languages 
which they have known only in youth. The case cited by 
Coleridge, and so frequently quoted, of the German servant 
girl, who in sickness was heard repeating passages of Greek, 
Latin, and Hebrew, which she had formerly heard her mas- 
ter repeat, as he walked in his study, but of whose meaning 
she had no idea, is in point in this connection. So also is the 
case of the Italian mentioned by Dr. Rush, who died in 
New York, and who, in the beginning of his sickness, spoke 
English, in the middle of it, French, but on the day of his 
death, nothing but Italian. A Lutheran clergyman of Phil- 
adelphia told Dr. Rush that it was not uncommon for the 
Germans and Swedes of his congregation, when near death, 
to speak and pray in their native languages, which some of 
them had probably not spoken for fifty years. These facts 
are sufficiently numerous to constitute a class by themselves ; 
they seem to fall under some law of the physical system not 
yet clearly understood, and are, therefore, in the present 
state of our knowledge, incapable of explanation. 

Inference often drawn from these Facts, — Certam writers 
have inferred, from the recurrence of things long forgotten, 
as in the cases now cited, that all knowledge is indestructible 
and that all which is necessary to the entire reproduction oi 
the past life is the quickened activity of the mental power* 
an eflfect wtiich is produced in the delirium of disease. Fron 
this they have derived an argument for future retribution 

a* 



130 MEMORY. 

Coleridge has made such use of it, and has been followed 
by Uphani, and in part, at least, though with more caution, 
by Wayland. 

The true Inference. — It may be doubted, perhaps, whether 
the absolute indestructibility of all human knowledge is a 
legitimate inference from these facts. The most that can 
with certainty be concluded from them, is, not that all ouf 
past thoughts and consciousness must or will return, but that 
much of it may — perhaps all of it ; and this is all we need 
to know in order to perceive the possibility of a future ret- 
ribution. It is enough to know, that in the constitution of 
the mind means exist for recalling, in some way to us mys- 
terious, and under certain conditions not by us fully under- 
stood, the objects of our former consciousness, in all the 
freshness and vividness of their past cognizance, long after 
they seem to have passed finally from the memory. 

Importance of a well-spent Life, — This simple fact, to- 
gether with the well-known tendency of the mind in advan^ 
cing age to revert to the scenes and incidents of early life, 
certainly presents in the clearest light the importance of a 
well-spent life, of a mind stored with such recollections as 
shall cast a cheerful radiance over the past, and brighten the 
uncertain future in those hours of gloom and despondency 
when the shadows lengthen upon the path of earthly pil- 
grimage, and life is drawing to a close. If the thoughts and 
impressions of the passing moment are liable, by some 
casual association, by some mysterioi^s law of our being, 
under conditions which may at any moment be fulfilled, to 
recur at any time to subsequent consciousness, with all the 
minuteness and power of present reality, it becomes us, as 
we regard our own highest interests, to guard well the 
avenues of thought and feeling against the first approach 
of that which we shall not be pleased to meet again, when 
it will not be in our power to escape its presence^ or avoi^ 
yUi recognition. 



MEMORY 131 

VII. In^^luence of Memory on the IfAPPiNESs of Life. 

The Pleasures of the Past thus retained. — Of the import- 
mice of this faculty as related to other intellectual powers, 
I have already spoken. I refer now to its value as connected 
with human happiness, as the source of some of the purest 
pleasures of life. The present, however joyous, is fleeting 
and evanescent. Memory seizes the passing moment, fixes 
it upon the canvas, and hangs the picture on the souPs inner 
chambers for her to look upon when she will. Thus, in an 
important sense, the former years are past, but not gone. 
We live them over again in memory. 

Instance of Niehuhr, — It is related of Carsten Niebuhr, 
the Oriental traveller, that " when old and blind, and so 
feeble that he had barely strength to be borne from his bed 
to his chair, the dim remembrance of his early adventures 
thronged before his memory with such vividness that they 
]:)resented themselves as pictures upon his sightless eye-balls. 
As he lay upon his bed, pictures of the gorgeous Orient 
flashed upon his darkness as distinctly as though he had just 
closed his eyes to shut them out for an instant. The cloud- 
less blue of the eastern heavens bending by day over the 
broad deserts, and studded by night with southern constel- 
lations, shone as vividly before him, after the lapse of half a 
century, as they did upon the first Chaldean shepherds 
whom they won to the worship of the host of heaven ; and 
he discoursed with strange and thrilling eloquence upon those 
scenes which thus, in the hours of stillness and darkness, were 
reflected upon his inmost soul." 

The same Thing occurs often in old Age, — Someiliing 
of this kind not unfrequently occurs in advanced life. Pic- 
ture to yourself an old man of many winters. The world in 
vhich his young life began has growm old with him and around 
him, and its brightest colors have faded from his vision. The 
life and stir, the whirl and tumult of the busy world, the world 
of to-dav and yesterday, move him not. He heeds but siightly 



132 MEMORY. 

the evewts of the passing hour. He lives in a past world 
The scenes of his childhood, the sports and companions of 
his youth, the hills and streams, the bright eyes and laughing 
faces on which his young eyes rested, in which his young 
heart delighted — these visit him again in his solitude, as he 
sits in his chair by the quiet fireside. He lives over again 
the past. He wanders again by the old hills, and over the 
old meadows. He feels again the vigor of youth. He leads 
again his bride to the altar. He brings home toys for his 
children, and enters again into their sports. And so the ex- 
tremes of life meet. Age completes the circuit, and brings 
us back to the starting-point. We close where we began, 
Life is a magic ring. 

The recollection of past Sorrow not always painful, — 
But life is not all joyous. Mingled with the brighter hues 
of every life are also much sadness and sorrow, and these, 
too, are to be remembered. It might be supposed that, 
while memory, by recalling the pleasing incidents of the 
past, might contribute much to our happiness, she would add, 
in perhaps an equal degree, to our sorrow, by recalling much 
that is painful to the thoughts. Such, however, I am con- 
vinced, is not the fact. The benevolence of the Creator 
has ordered it otherwise. To no one, perhaps, is memory 
the source of greater pleasure, strange as it may seem, than 
to the mourner. The very circumstances that tend to renew 
our grief, and keep alive our sorrow, in case of some severe 
calamity or bereavement, are still cherished with a melan- 
choly satisfaction of which we would not be deprived 
There is a luxury in our very grief, and in the remembrance 
of that for which we grieve. We would not forget what we 
have lost. Every recollection and association connected 
with it are sacred. Time assuages our grief, but impairs 
not the strength and sacredness of those associations, nor 
diminishes the pleasure with which we recall the forms wo 
shall see no more, and the scenes that are gone toreven 
Every memento of the departed ol8 is sacred ; the books. 



MEMOKT. I3*i 

the flowers, the favorite walks, the tree in whose shado^v he 
was wont to recline, all have a significance and a value 
which the stricken heart only can interpret, and which 
memory only can afford. 

We recollect the Past as it was. — It is to be noticed, 
also, that, in such cases, the picture which memory furnishes 
IS a transcript of the past as it was ; the image is stereotyped 
and unchangeable. Other things change, we change ; that 
changes not. It has a fixed value. A mother, for instance, 
loses a child of three years. It ever remains to her a child 
of three years. She remembers it as it was. She growb 
old ; twenty summers and winters pass ; yet as often as she 
visits the little mound, now scarce to be distinguished from 
the level surface, there comes to her recollection that little 
child as he was, when she hung, for the last time, over that 
pale, sweet facp that she should see no more. She still 
thinks of him, dreams of him, as a child, for it is as such 
only that she remembers him. 

Blessed boon, that gives us just the past ; when all things 
change, fortunes vary, friends depart, the world grows un- 
kind, and we grow old, the former things remain treasured 
in our memory, and we can stand as mourners at the gravo 
of what we once were. \ 

VIII. Historical Sketch. — Different Theories of 
Memory. 

Ancient Theory, — The idea formerly, and almost univer- 
sally entertained respecting the modus operandi of the faculty 
we call memory, was, that in perception and the various oper 
ations of the senses, certain impressions are made on the 
sensorium —certain forms and types of things without, certain 
images of them — which remain when the external object is 
no longer present, and become imprinted thus on the mind. 
Such, certainly, was the doctrine of the earliest Greek com* 
mcmtators on Aristotle. Such, I must think, is substantially 
tho d^cti'ine of Aristotle himself. 



134 MEMOKr. 

Theory of Aristotle, — His idea is, tbat mamory, as well as 
imagination, primarily and directly, relates only to sensible ob- 
jects, and gives us only images of these objects, and even when 
it gives us strictly intellectual objects, gives us these only by 
images. One cannot think^ he says, without images. Its 
source and origin, then, he concludes, is the sensibility, and so it 
pertains to animals^ as well as men ; only to those, however, 
which have the perception of time, since memory is a modifi« 
cation of sensation or intellectual conception, under the con- 
dition of time past. Such being, in his view, the nature and 
source of memory, he goes on to ask how it is that only a 
modification (or state) of the mind being present, and the 
object itself absent, one recalls that absent object ? 

"Manifestly," .he replies, "we must believe that the impres- 
sion which is produced, in consequence of the sensation, in 
the soul, and in that part of the body which perceives the 
sensation, is analogous to a species of painting, and that the 
perception of that impression constitutes precisely what we 
call memory. The movement which then takes place in the 
mind imprints there a sort of type of the sensation analo- 
gous to the seal which one imprints on wax with a ring. 
Hence it is that those who by the violence of the impression, 
or by the ardor of age are in a great excitement (movement) 
have not the memory of things, as if the movement and seal 
had been applied to running water. In the case of others, 
however, who are in a sort cold, as the plaster of old edifices, 
the very hardness of the part which receives the impression 
prevents the image from leaving the least trace. Hence it ia 
that young children and old men have so little memory. It 
is the same with those who are too lively, and those who 
are too slow. Neither remember well. The one class are 
too humid^ the other too hard. The image dwells not in 
the soul of the one, makes no impression whatever on that 
of the other. 

"How is it now," he goes on to ask, "that this stamp, impres- 
sion, image, or painting, in us, a mere mode of the mind, cai^ 



MEMORY. 135 

recall the absent object? " His answer is, that the impiessiOD 
or image is a copy of that object, while, at the same time, it 
is, in itself considered, only a modification of our mind, just 
as a painting is a mere picture, and yet a copy from nature. 
(Parva Naturalia: Memory, ch. 1.) 

Defence of Aristotle, — Sir W. Hamilton defends Ari* 
totle against the strictures of Dr. Reid, upon this subject, 
by the supposition that he used these expressions not in a 
literal, but in a figurative or analogical sense. The figure, 
however, if it be one, is very clearly and boldly sustained, 
and constitutes, in fact, the whole explanation given of the 
process of memory — the entire theory. Take away these 
expressions, and you take away the whole substance of his 
argument, the whole solution of the problem. Sensation, or 
intellectual conception, produces an impression on the soul, 
and imprints there a type of itself, not unlike a painting or 
the stamp of a seal on wax, and the perception of this is 
memory. Such is in brief his theory. 

Theory of Sobbes, — Not far remote from this was the 
theory of Hobbes, who regarded memory as a decaying or 
vanishing sense ; that of Hume, who represents it as merely 
a somewhat weaker impression than that which we designate 
as perception ; and that of the celebrated Malebranche, 
who accounted for memory by making it to depend entii'ely 
on the changes which take place in the fibres of the brain. 
" For even as the branches of a tree which have continued 
Bome time bent in a certain form, still preserve an aptitude 
to be bent anew after the same manner, so the fibres of the 
brain having once received certain impressions by the course 
of the animal spirits, and by the action of objects, retain a long 
time some facility to receive these same dispositions, ll^ow 
the memory consists only in this faculty, since we think on the 
same things when the brain receives the same impressions." 

He goes on to explain how, as the brain undergoes a 
change in dififerent periods of life, the mind is afiPected ac- 
cordingly. " The fibres of the brain in children ai-e Boft, 



136 MEMORY. 

flexible, and delicate ; a riper age dr'es, hardens, ^^d 
strengthens them ; but in old age they become wholly in- 
flexible." * * * u YoY as we see the fibres which compose 
the flesh harden by time, and that the flesh of a young part- 
ridge is, without dispute, more tender than that of an old 
one, so the fibres of the brain of a child or youth will be 
much more soft and delicate than those of persons more ad 
vanced in years." 

Strictures upon this Theory. — Without disputing what 
is here stated as to the difference in the fibres of the brain 
at different periods of life, it remains to be proved that all 
this has any thing to do with the differences of memory in dif- 
ferent persons, or with the phenomena of memory in general* 

These theories, it will be observed, all assume that in per- 
oeptk)n and sensation some physical effect is produced on 
the system, which remains after the orginal sensation or per- 
ception has ceased to act, and that memory is the result of 
that remaining effect, the perception, or conscious cogniz- 
ance of it by the mind. The process is a purely physiolog- 
ical one. Without insisting on the expressions made use of 
to represent this process, all which convey the idea strongly 
of a mechanical effect — type imprinted on the soul, impres* 
sion made on it as of a seal on wax, image, picture, copy, 
etc. ; allowing these to be mere metaphors ; allowing, 
moreover, that the essential fact all along assumed, is a fact, 
viz., that in sensation, perception, etc., some physical effect 
is produced on the sensorium ; there are still two essential 
propositions to be established before we can admit any of 
these theories: 1. That this physical effect remains any 
time after the cause ceases to operate ; 2, That if so, it is in 
any way concerned in the production of memory ; and even 
if these points could be made out, it would still be an open 
question, in what way, possible or conceivable, this effect 
or impression on the sensorium gives rise to the pheno- 
menon of memory ; foi this is, after all, the chief thing to be 
explained. 



IMAGINATION. 187 



CHAPTER II. 

IMAaiNATION. 
§ L— General Character of this Facultt. 

The Point at which we have arrived, — We have thus fai 
treated of those forms of mental representation which are 
concerned in the reproduction of what has once been per- 
ceived or felt, and in the recognition of it as such. It re- 
mains still to investigate that form of the representative 
power, which has for its office something quite distinct from 
either of these, and which we may term the creative 
faculty. 

Office of this Faculty, — By the operation of this power, 
the former perceptions and sensations are replaced in 
thought, and combined as in mental reproduction, but not, 
as in mental reproduction, according to the original and 
actual^ so that the past is simply repeated, but rather ac- 
cording to the mind's own ideal^ and at its own will and 
fancy ; so that while the groundwork of the representation 
is something which has been, at some time, an object of 
perception, the picture itself, as it stands before the mind 
in its completeness, is not the copy of any thing actually 
perceived, but a creation of the mind's own. This power 
the mind has, and it is a power distinct from either of those 
already mentioned, and not less wonderful than either. The 
details of the original perception are omitted ; time, place, 
ciroumstance faU out, or are varied to suit the fancy ; the 
scene is laid when and where we like ; the incidents follow 
each other no longer in their actual order ; the original, in 
a word, is no longer faithfully transcribed, but the picture is 
conformed to the taste and pleasure of the artist. The con* 
ception becomes ideal. This is imagination in its true and 
proper sphere — the creative power of the mind. 



\S% IMAGINATIOIS. 

§11. — R«i.ATlON OF THIS TO OTHER FACULTIES. 

Tae true province of imagination may be more definitely 
distinguished by comparing it with other powers of the mind. 

Imagination as related to Memory. ~ How, then, does 
imagination differ from memory ? In this, first and chiefly, 
that memory gives us the actual, imagination, the ideal ; in 
this also, that memory deals only with the past, while imagi- 
nation, not confined to such Umits, sweeps on bolder wing, 
and without bound, ahke through the future and the past. 
In one respect they agree. Both give the absent — that 
which is not now and here present to sense. Both are rep 
resentative rather than presentative. Both also are forms 
of conception. 

To Perception. — In what respect does it differ from per- 
ception? In perception the object is given, presented; in 
imagination it is thought, conceived ; in the former case it 
is given as actual^ in tb^ latter, conceived not as actual but 
as ideal. 

To Judgment. — Imagination differs from judgment^ in 
that the latter deals, not liki^ the former, with things in 
themselves considered, but rather with the relations of 
things — is, in^ other words, a -^orm Pot of simple^ but of rela^ 
tive conception ; and also in that it ^eals with these relation* 
as actual^ not as ideal. It has always specific reference to 
truth, and is concerned in the formati^^n of opinion and be- 
lief, as resting on the evidence of truth, a.nd the perceptioL 
of the actual relations of things. 

To Reasoning, — In like manner it differs from reason 
ing^ which also has to do with truths, facts — has for its ob- 
ject to ascertain and state those facts or principles ; its solt^ 
and simple inquiry being, what is true f Imagination con- 
cerns itself with no such inquiry, admits of no such limita- 
tion. Its thought is not what did actually occur, but what 
ui given circumstances m^ight occur. Its question is not 
what really was^ or is^ or will be, but what may be ; wliat 



IMAGINATION. 139 

may be concewed as possible or probable under such or such 
contingencies. 

Reasoning, moreover, reaches only such truths as are m 
volved in its premises, and may fairly be deduced as conclu* 
gions from those premises. It furnishes no new material, 
but merely evolves and unfolds what lies vrapped up in tht 
admitted premises. Imagination lies under no such restric- 
tion. There is no necessary connection between the wrath 
of Achilks, and the consequences that are made to result 
from it in the unfolding of the epic. 

To Taste, — Imagination and taste are by no means iden- 
tical. The former may exist in a high degree where the 
latter is essentially defective. In such a case the concep- 
tions of the imagination are, it may be, too bold, passing 
the limits of probability, or, it may be, offensive to delicacy 
wanting in refinement and beauty, or in some way deficient 
in the qualities that please a cultivated mind. This is not 
unfrequently the case with the productions of the poet, the 
painter, the orator. There is no lack of imagination in their 
works, while, at,the same time, they strike us as deficient in 
taste. Taste is the regulating principle, whose oflice is to 
guide and direct the imagination, sustaining to it much the 
same relation that conscience does to free moral action. It 
is a lawgiver and a judge. 

To Knowledge. — Still more widely does imagination 
differ from simple knowledge. There may.be great learn 
ing and no imagination, and the reverse is equally true. 
We know that which is — the actual ; we imagine that 
which is not — the ideal. Learning enlarges and quickens 
the mind, extends the field of its vision, augments its re- 
sources, expands its sphere of thought and action ; in this 
way its powers are strengthened, its conceptions multiplied 
and vivified. There is furnished, consequently, both more 
and better material for the creative faculty to work upon 
Further than this, the imagination is little indebted tc 
learning. 



140 IMAGINATION. 

Illustration of these Differences, — To illustrate the dif 
ferences already indicated : I stand at my window and looi 
out on the landscape. My eye rests on the form and dark 
outline of a mountain, pictured against the sky. Percep^ 
tion, this. I go back to my desk, I shut my eyes. That 
form and figure, pencilled darkly against the blue sky, are 
still in my mind. I seem to see them still. That heavy 
mass, that undulating outline, that bold rugged summit — 
the whole stands before me as distinctly as when my eye 
rested upon it. Conception, this, replacing the absent ob- 
ject. I not only in my thoughts seem to see the mountain 
thus reproduced, but I know it when seen ; I recognize it as 
the mountain which a moment before I saw from my win- 
dow. Memory, this, connecting the conception with some- 
thing in my past experience. The picture fades perhaps 
from my view, and I begin to estimate the probable dis- 
tance of the mountain, or its relative height, as compared 
with other mountains. Judgment, this, or the conception 
of relations. I proceed to calculate the number of square 
miles of surface on a mountain of that height and extent. 
Reasoning, this. And now I sweep away, in thought, the 
actual mountain, and replace it with one vastly more im- 
posing and grand. Eternal snows rest upon its summits ; 
glaciers hold their slow and stately march down its sides ^ 
the avalanche thunders fi:om its precipices. Imagination 
aow has the field to herself. 

§ IIL — Active and Passive Imagination. 

View of Dr, Wayland, — " If we regard the several act 
of this faculty," says Dr. Wayland, " we may, I think, ob 
serve a difference between them. We have the power to 
originate images or pictures for ourselves, and we have the 
power to form them as they are presented in language. 
The former may be called active, and the latter passive 
imagination. The active, I believe, always includes the pas^ 
sive power, but the passive does not always include the 



IMAGINATION. 141 

active. Thils we frequently observe persons who delight m 
poetry and romance, who are utterly incapable of creating 
a scene or composing a stanza. They can form the pictures 
dictated by language, but are destitute of the power of 
original combination." 

Correctness of this 'View questioned, — That inany who 
enjoy the creations of the poet and the splendid fictions of 
the dramatist and novelist, are themselves incapable of 
producing like creations, is doubtless true. The same is 
true in other departments of the creative art. Many per- 
sons enjoy a fine painting or statue, good music, or a noble 
architectural design, who cannot themselves produce these 
works of art. This does not prove them defieient, how- 
ever, in imagination, for the inability may be owing to other 
causes, as want of training ; nor, on the other hand, does 
the simple enjoyment of ideal creations involve a different 
kind of imagination from that exercised in creating. Imagi- 
nation is, as it seems to me, always active, never passive. 
Where it exists, and whenever it is called into exercise, it 
acts, and its action is, in some sense, creative. It conceives 
the ideal, that which, as conceived, does not exist, or at 
least is not known to the senses as existing. It matters not 
in what way these ideal conceptions are suggested, whether 
by the signs of language written or spoken, or by those 
characters which the painter, the sculptor, or the architect 
presents, each in his own way, and with his own material, or 
by one's own previous conceptions. Every ideal conception 
IS suggested by something antecedent to itself. All active 
imagination is, in other words, passive, in the sense here in- 
tended, and all passive imagination, so called, is in reality 
active, so far as it is, properly speaking, imagination at all. 
The difference between the faculty that produces and that 
which merely enjoys, is a difference of degree rather than of 
kind. The one is an imagination peculiarly active ; tne 
uther slightly so ; or, more properly, the one mind hai 
micc\ the other little imagination. 



142 IMAGINATION. 

Philosophic Imagination,— lihe terWi philosophic imagi 
nation, in distinction from poetic^ is employed by the same dis« 
fcinguished writer to denote the faculty, possessed by some 
minds of a high order, of discovering new truths in science ; 
of so classifying and arranging known facts as to bring to 
light the laws which govern them, or, by a happy conjecture, 
assigning to phenomena hitherto unexplained, a theory which 
will account for them. Whether the faculty now intended 
Ls properly imagination, admits of question. Its field is that 
of conj ecture, supposition, theory, invention. It involves 
the exercise of judgment and reason. It seeks after truth. 
It is a process of discovering what is. Imagination deals 
with the ideal only — inquires not for the true. 

§ IT. — iMAaiNATION A SiMPLB FACULTY. 

Common Theory, — The view which has been very gene- 
rally entertained of the faculty now under consideration, 
both in this country, and by the Scotch philosophers, resolves 
it partially or wholly into other powers of the mind, as ab- 
straction, association, judgment, taste. In this view, it 
is no longer a simple faculty, if indeed it can with propriety 
be called a faculty at all, inasmuch as the effects ascribed to 
it can be accounted for by thje agency of the other powers 
now named. 

A different 'View, — It seems to me that imagination, whil^ 
doubtless it presupposes and involves the exercise of the 
suggestive and associative principle, of the analytic or divi 
Bive principle by which compounds are broken up into theii 
distinct elements, and also, to some extent, of judgment, oi 
the principle which perceives relations, is, nevertheless, itself 
a powel* distinct from each of these, and from all of them in 
combination. Memory presupposes perception, or some- 
thing to be reproduced and remembered. It is not, therefore, 
to be regarded as a complex faculty, comprising the perce})- 
tive pcwer as one of its factors. The power to combine, ii? 



IMAGINATION. 143 

like msLxmei ^ presifpposes the previous separation of element<j 
capable of being reunited, but is not to be resolved into that 
power which produces such separation. It involves some 
exercise of judgment along with its own proper and dis- 
tinctive activity, but is not to be confounded with, or 
resolved into the power of perceiving relations. 

The faculty of ideal conception is really a power of th 
mind, and it is a simple power, a thing of itself, although it 
may involve and presuppose the activity of other faculties 
along with its own. Abstraction, association, judgment, 
taste — none of them singly, nor all of them combined, are 
what we mean by it. 

Theory of Brown, — Dr. Brown resolves the faculty now 
in question into simple suggestion, accompanied, in the case 
of voluntary imagination, with desire, and with judgment. 
There is nothing in the process different from what occurs 
in any case of the suggestion of one thought by another, he 
would say. We think of a mountain, we think of gold, and 
some analogy, or common property of the two, serves to 
suggest the complex conception, mountain of gold. Even 
where the process is not purely spontaneous, but accom- 
panied with desire on our part, it is still essentially the same 
process. We think of something, and this suggests other 
related conceptions, some of which we approve as fit for our 
purpose. Others we reject as unfit. Here is simple suggestion 
accompanied with desire and judgment ; and these are a]] 
the ^actors that enter into the process. " We may term this 
state, or series of states, imagination or fancy, and the term 
nay be convenient for its brevity. But in using it we must 
not forget that the term, however brief and simple, is stiD 
the name of a state that is complex, or of a succession of 
states, that the phenomena comprehended under it being 
the same in nature, are not rendered, by the use of a mere 
word, different from those to which we have already given 
peculiar names expressive of them as they exist separately; 
and ttiat it is to the classes of these elementary phenomena. 



144 IMAGINATION. 

tlierelbre, that we must refer the whole process of imagiDa 
tion in our philosophic analysis." 

Strictures on this Tlieory, — This view, it will be per 
ceived, in reality sweeps the faculty of imagination entirely 
fi'om the field. To this I cannot yield my assent. Is not 
this state, or affection of the mind, as Dr. Brown calls it 
quite a distinct thing from other mental states and affeo 
tions ? Has it not a character sui generis ? Is not the 
operation, the thing done, a different thing from what i& 
done in other cases, and by other faculties ; and has not the 
mind the power of doing this new and different thing ; and 
is not that power of doing a given thing what we mean in 
any case by 2^, faculty of the mind ? Is there not an element in 
thi« process under consideration which is not involved in other 
mental processes, viz. : the ideal element ; the conception, 
not of the actual and the real, as in the case of the other 
faculties, but of the purely ideal? And if the mind has the 
faculty of forming a class of conceptions so entirely distinct 
from the others, why not give that faculty a name, and its 
ow n proper name, and allow it a place, its own proper place, 
among the menial powers ? 

§ Y. — Imagination not merely the Power of Combination. 

The prevalent 'View, — This question is closely connected 
with that just discussed. The usual definitions make the 
faculty under consideration a mere process of combining 
and arranging ideas previously in the mind, so as to form 
new compounds. You have certain conceptions. These 
you combine one with another, as a child puts togethei 
blocks that lie before him, to suit himself, now this upper 
most, now that, and the result is a work of imagination. It 
is the mere arrangement of previous conceptions, and not 
itself a power of producing or conceiving any thing. And 
even this arrangement of former conceptions is itself a spo7i<' 
taneous casual process, according to Dr. Brown, not properly 
a power of the mind. 



IMAGINATION. 145 

3faJce8 Imagination little else than Invention, — Accorrl- 
iTi'g to this view, imagination is hardly to be distinguish (3(1 
from mere invention in the mechanic arts, which is the re- 
gult of some new combination of previously existing materials. 
The construction of a steam-pump with a new kind of valve, 
is as really a work of imagination, as Paradise Lost. The 
man who contrives a carding-machine, and the man who 
conceives the Transfiguration, the Apollo Belvidere, or the 
Iliad, are exercising both the s^-me faculty — merely com- 
bining in new forms the previous possessions of the mind. 

T7iis View inadequate, — This is a very meagre and in- 
adequate view, as it seems to me, of the faculty of imagina- 
tion. It fixes the attention upon, and elevates into the 
importance of a definition, a circumstance in itself unim- 
portant, while it overlooks the essential characteristic of the 
faculty to be defined. The creative activity of the mind is 
lost sight of in attending to the materials on which it 
works. 

The Distinctive Element of Imagination overlooJced. — 
Imagination I take to be the power of conceiving the ideal. 
The elements which enter into and compose that ideal con- 
ception, are, indeed, elements previously existing, not them- 
selves the mind's creations ; but the conception itself is the 
mind's own creation, and this creative activity, this power 
of conceiving the purely ideal, is the very essence of that 
which we are seeking to define. True, the separate con- 
ceptions which enter into the composition of Paradise Lost 
— trees, flowers, rivers, mountains, angels, deities — were 
already in the poet's mind before he began to meditate tht 
sublime epic. They were but the material on which he 
wrought. Has he then created nothing, conceived nothing? 
Have we truly and adequately described that immortal 
poem when we say that it is a mere combination of trees, 
rivers, hills, and angels, in certain proportions and relations 
Qot previously attempted ? 

Illustration drawn from the Arts, — The artist makes use 

1 



140 IMAGINATION. 

of colors previously existing when he would produce a paint- 
ing, and of marble already in the block, when he would chisel 
a statue or a temple. In reality he only combines. Yet it 
would be but a poor definition of any one of these sublimf 
arts to say that painting, sculpture, architecture, is merelv 
the putting together of previous materials to form new 
wholes. We object to such a definition, not because it af- 
firms what is not true, but because it does not affirm the 
chief and most important truth ; not because of what it 
states, but because of what it omits to state. These are 
creative arts. They give us indeed not new substances, bux 
new forms, new products, new ideas. So is imagination a 
creative faculty. The individual elements may not be new, 
but the grand product and result is new, a creation of the 
mind's own. And this is of more consequence than the 
fact that the elementary conceptions were already in the 
mind. The one is the essential characteristic, the other a 
comparatively unimportant circumstance ; the one describes 
the thing itself, the other the mere modus operandi of the 
thing. 

Illustration draion from the Creation of the m^ateriai 
World, - — What is creation in its higher and moi e proper 
sense, as applied to the formation, by divine power, of the 
world in which we dwell ? There was a moment, in the 
eternity of the past, when the omnipotent builder divided 
the light from the darkness, and the evening and the morn- 
ing were the first day. The elements may have existed be- 
fore — heat, air, earth, water, the various material and dif 
fused substance of the world about to be — but latent, con- 
fused, chaotic those elements, not called forth and ap- 
pointed each to its own proper sphere. Light slumbers 
amid the chaotic elements unseen. He speaks the word, and 
it comes forth from its hiding-place, and stands revealed in 
its own beauty and splendor. Has God made nothing, in so 
doing ? Has he conceived nothing, created nothing ? And 
when the work goes on, ai d is at length complete- and the 



IMAGINATION. 141 

fair new world hangs poised and trembling on its axis, pei- 
fect in every part, and rejoicing the heart of the builder, is 
there no new power displayed in all this, no creation here ? 
And do we well and adequately express the sublime mystery 
when we say that the deity has merely arranged and com 
binea materials previously existing, to form a new whole ? 

Art essentially creative, — So when the poet, the painter, 
the skillful architect, the mighty orator, call forth from 
the slumbering elements new forms of beauty and power, 
are not they, too, in their humble way, creators ? True, 
they have in so doing combined conceptions previously ex- 
isting in the mind. The writer combines in new forms the 
existing letters of the alphabet, the painter combines existing 
colors, the architect puts together previously-existing stones. 
But is this all he does ? Is it the chief thing ? Is this 
the soul and spirit of his divine art ? No ; there is a new 
power, anew element, not thus expressed — the power of con- 
ceiving, and calling into existence, in the realm of thought, 
that which has no actual existence in the world of sober 
reality. He who has this power is a maker — tt o l rj r ?] ^. 
It is a power conferred, in some degree, on all, in its highest 
degree, on few. The poet, painter, orator, the gifted crcii- 
tive man, whoever he is, belongs to this class. 

g YI. — Imagination limited to Sensible Objects. 

jOaw of the Imagination, — It is a law of the imagina^ 
tion, that whatever it represents, it realizes, clothes in sen- 
gible forms, conceives as visible, audible, tangible, or in some 
way within the sphere and cognizance of sense. Whatever 
it has to do with, whatever object it seizes and prebents, it 
brings within this sphere, invests with sensible drapery. 
Now, strictly speaking, there are no objects, save those of 
sense, which admit of this process, which can be, even in 
conception, thus invested with sensible forms, pictured to 
the eye, oj represented to the other senses as objects of their 



148 IMAGINATION 

cognizance. If I conceive of objects strictly immalenal aa 
thus presented, I make them, by the very conception, to 
depart from their proper nature and to become sensible. 
Imagination has nothing to do, then, strictly speaking, with 
abstract truths and conceptions, with spiritual and imma- 
terial existences, with ideas and feelings as such, for none oi 
these can be represented under sensible forms, or brought 
within the sphere and cognizance of the senses. Sensible 
objects are the groundwork, therefore, of its operation - 
the materials of its art. 

JBut 7iot to visible Objects, — It is not limited, however, 
to ^jm^fe objects merely — is not a mere picture-forming, 
image-making power. It more frequently, indeed, fashions 
its creations after the conceptions which sight affords than 
those of the other senses ; but it deals also with conceptions 
of sound, as in music, and the play of storm and tempest, and 
with other objects of sense, as the taste, the touch, pressure, 
etc. Thus the gelidi fontes of Virgil is an appeal to the 
sense of delicious coolness not less than to that of sparkling 
beauty. A careful analysis of every act of the imagination 
will show, I think, a sensible basis as the groundwork of the 
fabric — something seen, or heard, or felt — something said 
or done — some sensible reality — something which, how- 
ever ideal and transcendental in itself and in reality, yet 
admits of expression in and through the senses ; otherwise 
it were a mere conception or abstraction — a mere idea — 
not an imagination. 

§ YII. — iMAaiNATION LIMITED TO NeW RESULTS. 

The simple reproduction of the past^ whether an object Ok 
perception, or sensation, or conception merely, the simple 
reproduction or bringing back of that to the mind, we have 
assigned as the office of another faculty. Imagination, we 
have said, departs from the reality, and gives you not what 
fCu have had befoi 3, but something new, other, differ 



IMAGINATION. I49 

eut. It is not the simple image-making powei, then, for 
mental reproduction gives you an image or picture of any 
former object of perception, as you have seen it — a portrait 
of the past, true and faithful to the original. 

Some writers would differ from the view now expressed. 
Some of the Germans assign to imagination the double office 
of producing the new and reproducing the old ; the latter 
they call imaginative reproduction. In what respect this 
latter differs from the faculty of mental reproduction in gen- 
eral, it is difficult to perceive. When I remember a word 
spoken, or a song, I have the conception of a sounds or a 
series of sounds. When I remember an object in nature, as 
a mountain, a house, etc., I have the conception of a ma- 
terial object, having some definite form, and figure, outline, 
proportion, magnitude, etc. The conception of the absent 
object presents itself in such a case, >f course, as an image 
or picture of the object to the menta^ eye. It is as really 
the work of conception reproductive, however, to replace, in 
this case, the absent object as once perceived, as it is to 
bring back to mind any thing else that has once been before 
it ; e. g.^ a spoken word or a date in history. We may, if we 
please, term this faculty, as employed on objects of sight, 
conception imaginative^ and distinguish it from the same 
faculty as employed in reproducing other objects ; but it 
were certainly better to appropriate the term imagination 
to the single and far higher province of creation — the office 
of conceiving the ideal under the form of the sensible. 

* § VIIL — Imagination a Voluntary Power, or PROCEsa 

Is it an act which the mind puts forth when it will, and with 
hoVIs when it will ? Or is it a mere passive susceptibility 
of tne mind to be impressed in this particular way ? As the 
harp lies passive to the wind, which comes and goes we 
know not how or whither, so does the mind Ue open to such 
thoughts and fancies as flit over *t, and call forth its hidden 



150 IMAGINATION. 

harmonies as they pass by ? Those who, with Di, Brown, 
resolve imagination into mere suggestion, of course take 
uhe latter view. 

Often spontaneous. — Undoubtedly, the greater part ol 
our ideal conceptions are spontaneous — the thoughts that 
rise at the instant, unpremeditated, uncalled, the suggestions 
of the passing moment or event. This is true of our daily 
reveries, and all the little romances we construct, when we 
give the reins to fancy, and a " varied scene of thought" — 
to use the beautiful expression of Cudworth — passes before 
us, peopled with forms unreal and illusive. There is no 
special volition to call up these conceptions, or such as these. 
They take their rise and hue from the complexion of the 
mind at the time, and the character of the preceding concep- 
tions, in the ever moving, ever varying series and procession 
of thought. They are like the shifting figures on the cur- 
tain in a darkened room, shadows coming and going, as the 
forms of those without move hither and thither. So far, all 
is spontaneous. Nay, more : It is, doubtless, impossible, by 
direct volition, to call up any conception, ideal or otherwise; 
since this, as Dr. Brown has well argued, would be " either 
to will without knowing what we will, which is absurd," or 
else to have already the conception which we wL^^hed to 
have, which is not less absurd. 

If no intentional Activity^ then Imagination not a Fac- 
ulty, — Is there then no intentional creation of new and ideal 
conceptions, of images, similes, metaphors, and other like 
material of a hvely and awakened fancy, but merely a casual 
suggestion of such and such thoughts, quite beyond auy 
control and voUtion or even purpose of ours ? If so, then, 
after all, is it proper to speak of a faculty of imagination, 
since we have not, in this case, the power of doing the 
thing under consideration? We merely sit still in the dark- 
ened room, and watch the figures as they come and go, with 
some desire that the thing may go on, some appreciation of it, 
tome critical judgment of the difierent forms apd movements 



IMAGINATION. 16l 

The Mind not wholly passive in the Process, — I reply 
this is not altogether so. The mind is not dliog^theY passive 
in this thing ; there is an activity involved in the process, 
and that of the mind's own. There is a power, either orig- 
inal or acquired, of conceiving such thoughts as are now 
under consideration, a readiness for them, a proneness to them, 
a bias, propensity, inclination, more powerful in some than 
in others, by virtue of which this process occurs. We may 
call this a faculty, though, more strictly, perhaps, a suscepti- 
bility^ but it is, in truth, one of the endowments of the 
mind, part of its furniture, one form of its activity. 

A more direct voluntary Element. — But there is, further 
than this, and more directly, a voluntary element in the 
process. It is in our power to yield, or not, tp this propen- 
sity, this inchnation to the ideal; to put forth the mentitl 
activity in this direction, or to withhold it ; to say whether or 
not the imagination shall have its free, full play, and with 
Uberated wing soar aloft through her native skies ; whether 
our speech shall be simple argument, unadorned stout logic, 
or logic not less stout, clothed with the pleasing, rustling 
drapery which a lively imagination is able to throw, like a 
splendid robe, over the naked form of truth. 

There is, then, really a mental activity, and an activity m 
some degree under control of the will, in the process we are 
considering. 

Same Difficulty lies elsewhere, — The same difficulty which 
meets us here, meets us elsewhere, and lies equally against 
other mental powers. We cannot, by direct volition, re- 
member a past event, for this implies, as in 'the case of the 
voUtion to imagine a given scene, either that the thing ia 
already in view, or else that we will we know not whaL 
Yet, as every one knows, there is a way of recalling paet 
events ; a faculty or power of doing this thing ; a faculty 
which we exercise when we please. 

The same may be said of the power of thought in general, 

» 

We cannot, by direct voUtion, think- of any given thing, foj 



162 IMAGINATION. 

to will to th nk of it is already to have thought of it, yet 
there is mental activity involved in every process of thought 
a mental power exercised, a faculty of some sort exercised, 
Kor is it a power altogether beyond our own control. We 
can direct our thoughts, can govern them, can turn them, as 
we do a water course, that will flow somewhere, but whose 
channel we may lead this way or that. 

§ IX. — Use and Abuse of Imagination. 

Influence upon the Mind. — As to the benefits arising 
from the due use and exercise of this faculty, not much, per- 
haps, is requisite to be said. It gives vividness to our con* 
ceptions, it raises the tone of our entire mental activity, it 
adds force to our reasoning, casts the light of fancy over the 
sombre plodding steps of judgment, gilds the recollections 
of the past, and the anticipations of the future, with a color- 
ing not their own. It lights up the whole horizon of thought, 
as the sunrise flashes along the mountain tops, and lights up 
the world. It would be but a dreary world without that 
light. 

Influence on the Orator. — By its aid the orator presents 
his clear, strong argument in its own simple strength and 
beauty, or commands those skilful touches, that, by a niagio 
spell, thrill all hearts in unison. There floats before his mind, 
ever as he proceeds, the beau ideal of what his argument 
should be ; toward this he aspires, and those aspirations 
make him what he is. No man is eloquent who has not the 
imagination requisite to form and keep vividly before him 
such an ideal. 

On the Artist. — By its aid the artist breathes into the 
manimate marble the breath of life, and it becomes a living 
BOUi. By its aid, deaf old Beethoven, at his stringless instru- 
ment, calls up the richest harmony of sound, and blind old 
Milton, in his darkness and desolateness, takes his magician's 
wand, and lol there rises before him the vision of that Para^ 



IMAGINATION. 153 

dise where man, in his primeval innocence, walked witt 
God. 

On other Minds. — Nor is it the poet, the orator, the 
artist, alone, that derive benefit from the exercise of this 
faculty, or have occasion to make use of it. It is of inestimable 
value to us all. It opens for us new worlds, enlarges the 
sphere of our mental vision, releases us from the bonds and 
bounds of the actual, and gives us, as a bird let loose, the 
wide firmament of thought for our domain. It gilds the 
bald, sullen actualities, and stern realities of life, as the 
morning reddens the chill, snowy summits of the Alps, till 
they glow in resplendent beauty. 

On the Spectator and Observer, — It is of service, not to 
him who writes alone, but to him who reads ; not to him 
who speaks alone, but to him who hears ; not to the artist 
alone, but to the observer of art ; for neither poet, nor orator, 
nor artist, can convey the full meaning, the soul^ the inspi- 
ration of his work, to one who has not the imagination to 
appreciate and feel the beauty, and the power, that lie hidden 
there. There is just as much meaning in their works, to us, 
as there is soul in us to receive that meaning. The man of 
no imagination sees no meaning, no beauty, no power, in the 
Paradise Lost, the symphonies of Beethoven and Mozart, 
the Transfiguration of Raphael, the Aurora of Guido, or the 
master-pieces of Canova and Thorwalsden. 

Errors of Lnagination. - — Undoubtedly there are errors, 
mistakes, prejudices, illusions of the imagination ; mistakes 
in judgment, in reasoning, in the affairs of practical life, the 
source of which is to be found in some undue influence, some 
wrong use, of the imagination. We mistake its conceptions 
for realities. We dwell upon its pleasing visions till we for 
get the sober face of truth. We fancy pleasures, benefits 
results which will never be realized, or we look upon the 
dark and dr^^ary side of things till all nature wears the som- 
bre hue of our disordered fancy. 

STot, there/ore^ to set aside its due Culture. ~ All thio we 

1* 



154 IMAGINATION. 

are liable tc do. All these abuses of the imagination are 
possible, likely enough to occur. Against them we must 
guard. But to cry out against the culture and due exercise 
of the imagination, because of these abuses to which it is 
liable, is not the part of wisdom or highest benevolence. 
To hinder its fair and full development, and to preclude its 
use, is to cut ourselves off, and shut ourselves out, from the 
source of some of the highest, purest, noblest, pleasures of 
this our mortal life. 

No Faculty perhaps of more Value. — It is not too much 
to say, that there is, perhaps, no faculty of the mind which, 
under due cultivation, and within proper bounds, is of more 
real service to man, or is more worthy of his regard, than 
this. Especially, is it of value in forming and holding before 
the mind an ideal of excellence in whatever we pursue, 
% standard of attainment, practicable and desirable, but lof 
tier far than any thing we have yet reached. To present 
such an ideal, is the work of the imagination, which looks 
not upon the actual, but the possible, and conceives that 
which is more perfect than the human eye hath seen, or the 
human hand wrought. No man ever yet attained excel- 
lence, in any art or profession, who had not floating before 
his mind, by day and by night, such an ideal and vision of 
what he might and ought to be and to do. It hovers 
before him, and hangs over him, like the bow of promise and 
of hope, advancing with his progress, ever rising as he rises, 
and moving onward as he moves ; he will never reach it, 
but without it he would never be what he is. 

§ X. — Culture of the Imagination. 

Strengthened by Use, — In what way, it is sometimes 
asked, may the faculty under consideration be improved and 
strengthened ? To this it may be replied, in general, that 
the ideal facult j , like every other, is developed and strength- 
ened by exercise, weakened and impaired by neglect. There 



IMAGINATION. 155 

IS no surer way to secure its growth than to cail its present 
powers, whatever they may be, into frequent exercise. The 
mental faculties, like the thews and muscles of the physical 
frame, develop by use. Imagination follows the same gen- 
eral law. 

Study of the Works of others, — I do not mean by this 
exclusively the dkect exercise of the imagination in ideal 
creations of our own, although its frequent employment in 
this way, is of course necessary to its full development. 
But the imagination is also exercised by the study of the 
ideal creations of others, especially of those highly gifted 
minds which have adorned and enriched their age with pro 
ductions of rarest value, which bear the stamp and seal of 
immortality. With these, in whatever department of letters 
or art, in poetry, oratory, music, painting, sculpture, architec- 
ture — whatever is grand, and lofty, and full of inspiration, 
whatever is beautiful and pleasing, whatever is of choicest 
worth and excellence in its own proper sphere ; with these 
let him become familiar who seeks to cultivate in himself 
the faculty of the ideal. Every work of the imagination 
appeals to the imagination of the observer, and thus devel- 
ops the faculty which it calls into exercise. No one can be 
familiar with the creations of Shakspeare and Milton, of 
Mozart and Beethoven, of Raphael and Michael Angelo, 
and not catch something of their inspiration. 

Study of Nature. — Even more indispensable is the study 
of nature ; and it has this advantage, that it is open to those 
who may not have access to the sublime works of the high- 
est masters of art. Nature, in all her moods and phases — 
in her wonderful variety of elements — the grand and the 
lowly, the sublime and the beautiful, the terrible and the 
pleasing — nature in her mildest and most fearful displays 
of power, and also in her softest and sweetest attractions, 
is open to every man's observation, and he must be a 
close observer and a diligent student of her who would 
cultivate in himself the ideal element. The most gifted 



156 IMAGINATION. 

Bons of genius, the minds most richly endowed with the 
power of ideal creation, have been remarkable for their love 
and careful study of nature. 

Mistake on this Point, — I must notice in this connec- 
tion, however, a mistake into which some have fallen in re. 
p^ard to this matter. The simple description of a scene in 
nature, just as it is, is not properly a work of the imagina- 
lion. It is simply perception or memory that is thus exer 
cised, along with judgment and artistic power of expres- 
sion. Imagination gives not the actual, but the ideal. She 
never satisfies herself with an exact copy. The mere por- 
trait painter, however skillful, is not in the highest sense an 
artist. The painter, mentioned by Wayland, who copied 
the wing of the butterfly for the wing of the Sylph, was 
not, in so doing, exercising his imagination, but only his 
power of imitation. So, too, when Walter Scott gives us, 
in the cave of Denzel, a precise description of some spot 
which he has seen, even to the very plants and flowers that 
grow among the rocks, that scene, however pleasing and 
iife4ike, is not properly a creation of his own imagination ; 
it is a description of the actual, and not a conception of the 
ideal. Much that is included under the general title of 
works of the imagination is not properly the production 
of that faculty. 

Coleridge has made essentially the same remark, that in 
what is called a work of imagination, much is simple narra- 
tion, much the filling up of the outline^ and not to be attribu- 
«;ed to that faculty. 

The Student of Nature not a mere Copyist. — The trut 
study of nature, is not to observe simply that we may copy 
what she presents, but rather to gather materials on which 
our own conceptive power may work, and which it may 
fashion after its own designs into new combinations and re- 
sults of beauty. Nature, too, is full of hints and sngges- 
tions which a discerning mind, and an eye practised to the 
beautiful, will r^t fail to catch ard improve. It is only 



IMAGINATION. 157 

wnen we do this, when we begin, in fact, to depart 
from, and go beyond the actual, that we exercise the 
imagination. 

Difference illustrated by an Example. — The difference 
between simple description, and the creations of the con- 
oeptive faculty, may be shown by reference to a single 
example : 

"The twi?ig»it hours, like birds, flew by, 

As lightly and as free ; 
Ten thousand stars were in the sky, 

Ten thousand in the sea ; 
For every wave, with dimpled cbeolc 

That 'ieaped upon the air. 
Had caught a star in its embrace,' 

And held it trembling there." 

The quiet stillness of the evening, the reflection of the 
stars in the sea, are the two simple ideas which enter into 
this beautiful stanza. They would have been faithfully and 
fully expressed, so far as regards all the perfections of exact 
description, by the simple propositions which follow : " The 
evening hours passed swiftly and silently ; many stars ap- 
peared in the sky, and each was reflected in the sea." 

The poet is not content with this description. The swift- 
ness and silentness of those passing hours remind him of the 
flight of birds along the sky. The resemblance strikes him 
a> beautiful. He embodies it in his description. It is an 
ideal conception. He goes further. He sees in the watei, 
not tlie reflection merely o^ the stars, bat the stars them 
•elves, as many in the sea as in the sky. Here is a de- 
parture from the truth, from the actual, an advance into 
the region of the ideal. Imagination, thus set free, takes 
still further liberties : attributes to the inanimate wave the 
dimpled cheeh of beauty, ascribes its restlessness not to the 
laws of gravitation, but to the force of a strictly human 
passion , un ier the iufluenco of which it leaps into the ai? 



158 IMAGINATICN 

toward the object of its affection, seizes it, and holds it, 
irembUng, in its embrace 

§ XL — Historical Sketch, 

Various Definitioi^c, and Theories of Imagination 
BY Different Writers. 

Definition of Dr, Meid. — Meid makes it nearly synony. 
Qious with simple apprehension. " I take imagination, in its 
most proper sense, to signify a lively conception of objects 
of sight^^^ the conception of things as they appear to the eye. 
Addison employs the term with the same limitation, that is, 
as confined to objects of sight. 

Of Stewart. -— Stewart regards this as incorrect, holds that 
imagination is not confined to visible or even sensible objects. 
He regards it as a complex, not a simple power, including 
simple apprehension, abstraction, judgment, or taste, and 
association of ideas ; its province being to select, from dif 
ferent objects, a variety of qualities and circumstances, and 
combine and arrange them so as to form a new creation ol 
its own. 

Of Brown. — Brown differs not essentially from the viev 
uf Stewart. He also makes imagination a complex opera 
tion, involving conception, abstraction, judgment, associa 
tion. He distinguishes between the spontaneous and the 
voluntary operation of the imaginative power ; in the for 
mer case, there is no voluntary effort of selection, combi 
nation, etc., but images arise independently of any desire or 
choice of ours, by the laws of suggestion ; and this he hold^ 
(,o be the most frequent operation of the faculty. In the 
case of voluntary imagination, which is attended with desire 
this desire is the prominent thing, and serves to keep the 
conception of the subject before the mind, in consequence 
of which, a variety of associated conceptions follow, by the 
laws of suggestion, in regular train. Of these suggested 
conceptions and images, some, we approve, others, we do 



IMAGINATION. 159 

not ; the former, by virtue of our approval, become more 
lively and permanent, while the latter pass a»vay. Thus, 
without any direct effort or power of the will to combine 
and separate these various conceptions, they shape themselves 
according to our approval and desire, in obedience to the 
ordinary laws of suggestion. 

Of Smith, — Sydney Smith regards imagination m much 
the same light — a faculty in which association plays the prin 
cipal part, assisted by judgment, taste, etc., amounting, ia 
fact, to much the same thing that we call invention ; the 
process by which a poet constructs a drama, or a machinist 
a steam-engine, being essentially the same. 

Of Wayland and Upham,. — Wayland^ in common with 
most of the authors already cited, makes imagination a com- 
plex faculty, involving abstraction, and association ; " the 
power by which, from simple conceptions already existing 
in the mind, we form complex wholes or images." Some 
form of abstraction necessarily precedes the exercise of this 
power. The different elements of a conception must be first 
mentally severed before we can reunite them in a new con • 
ception. " It is this power of reuniting the several elements 
of a conception at will, that is, properly, imagination. Im- 
agination may then be designated the power of combination." 
Upham, takes the same view. The same view, essentially, 
is also given by Am^ande Jacques^ a French writer of dis- 
tinction. 

View of Tissot. — Tissot, as also many of the German 
philosophers, gives imagination the double province of re- 
calling sensible intuitions, objects of sight, such as we have 
known them, and also of conceiving objects altogether dif 
ferently disposed from our original perceptions of them, 
varied from the reality. The former they call imagination 
reproduGtivey the latter, creative. That form of the imagi- 
nation which is purely spontaneous, in distinction from the 
voluntary, they tevia fancy. 

Of Coleridge and Mahan. — Coleridge^ followed by Mo' 



160 IMAGINATION 

ha7i^ regards imagination as the power which recombines 
the several elsments of thought into conceptions, ;vhich con- 
form not to mere existences^ but to certain fundamental 
ideas in the inind itself ideas of the beautiful, sublime, etc. 
lliese Definitions agree in what. — These definitions, it 
will be perceived, with scarcely an exception make imagina- 
tion to be a complex faculty, and regard it as merely tliA 
power of combining^ in new forms, the various elements of 
thought already in the mind. The correctness of each of 
these ideas Las been already discussed* 



INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES. 



PART THIRD. 



THE REFLECTIVE POWER 



THE REFLECTIVE POWER. 



GENERAL OBSEEYATIONS. 

Office of this Power, — We have thus far treated of that 
power of the mind by which it takes cognizance of objects 
as directly presented to sense, and also of that by which it 
represents to itself former objects of cognition in their ab- 
sence. But a large portion of our knowledge and of our 
mental activity does not fall under either of these divis- 
ions. There is a class of mental operations which diffei 
from the former, in that they do not give us directly sensa 
tions or perceptions of things, do not present objects them- 
selves ; and from the latter, in that they do not represent to 
the thought absent objects of perception ; which differ fron> 
both, in that they deal not with the things themselves, but 
with the properties and relations of things — not with the 
concrete, but with the abstract and general. This class of 
operations, to distinguish it from the preceding classes, we 
have named, in our analysis, the reflective power of the 
nind. It comprises a large part of our mental activity. 

Specific Character, — The form of mental activity whici 
is characteristic of this faculty, is the perception of relationa 
that which Dr. Brown calls relative suggestion.^ but which 
we should prefer to term relative conception. The mind i% 
so constituted that when distinct objects of thought arb 
presented, it conceives at once the notion of certain rela- 
tions existing between those objects. One is larger, one 



164 THE REFLECTIVE POWER. 

smaller, one is here, the other there, one is a part in relation 
to a whole, some are like, others unlike each other. The 
several relations that may exist and fall under the notice of 
this power of the mind are too many to be easily enumer- 
ated. The more important are, position, resemblance, pro 
portion, degree, comprehension. All these may, perhaps, by 
a sufficiently minute analysis, be resolved into one — that of 
comprehension, or the relation of a whole to its parts. 

Comprehensive of several Processes. — The faculty now 
under consideration will, on careful investigation, be found 
to underlie and comprehend several mental processes usually 
ranked as distinct operations and faculties of the mind, but 
which are at most only so many forms of the general power 
of relative conception. Such are the mental operations 
usually known as judgment^ abstraction^ generalization^ and 
reasoning. Of these, and their relation to the general 
faculty comprehensive of all, we shall have occasion to 
speak further as we proceed. 

Two Modes of Operation. — As the relations of object to 
object may all be comprised under the general category of 
comprehension, or the whole and its parts, there are mani- 
festly two modes or processes in which the reflective faculty 
may put forth its activity. It may combine the several 
parts or elements to form a complex whole, or it may divide 
the complex whole into its several parts and elements. In 
the one case, it works from the parts, as already resolved, to 
the whole ; in the other, from the whole, as already com- 
bined, to the parts. The one is the compositive or synthetic, 
the other, the analytic or divisive process. Each will claim 
Dur attention. 



UHAPTER I. 

THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS — GENERALIZATION 

§ I. — Nature op the Synthetic Process. 

Our Conceptions often Complex, — If we examir e atteu- 
tively the various notions or conceptions of the mind, we 
find that a large part of them are in a sense complex — com- 
prising, in a word, a certain aggregate of properties, which, 
taken together, constitute our conception of the object. 
Thus, my notion of table, or chair, or desk, is made up of 
several conceptions, of form, size, material, color, hardness, 
weight, use, etc., etc., all which, taken together, constitute 
my notion of the object thus designated. 

Originally given as discrete. — - These several elements 
that enter into the composition of our conceptions of ob- 
jects, it is further to be noticed, are, in the first instance, 
given us in perception, not as a complex whole, but as dis- 
crete elements. Thus, sight gives us form and color ; touch 
gives us extension, hardness, smoothness, etc. ; muscular re- 
sistance gives us weight, and so, by the various senses, we 
gather the several properties which make up our cognizance 
of the object, and which, taken together, constitute our 
conception of it. 

Conceptions of Classes. — But a large part of our cor- 
ceptions, if we carefully observe the operations of our own 
minds, are not particular, but general, not of individual 
objects, but of classes of objects. Of this, any one may 
satisfy himself on a little reflection. How are these concep- 
tions formed ? 

Such Conceptions^ how formed. — The process of forming 
a general conception, I take to be this : The seveial ele- 
ments that compose our conception of an individual object, 



106 THE SYNTHITIC PROCESS. 

being originally presented, as we have already said, one by 
one, in the discrete, and not in the concrete, it is of course 
in our po iver to conceive of any one of these elements by 
itself. No new power or faculty is needed for this. By 
the usual laws of suggestion any one of these elements may 
be presented to t,he mind, distinct from those with which, in 
perception, it is associated, and as such it may be the object 
of attention and thought. I may thus conceive of the color, 
the form, the size, or the fragrance of a flower. 

JExtension of the Process to other Objects. — It is of the 
form, color, etc., of some particular flower, as yet, how- 
ever, and not of form and color in general, that I conceive. 
Suppose, now, that other flowers are presented to my no- 
tice, possessing the same form and color, for example, red. 
Presently I observe other objects, besides flowers, that are 
of the same color — horses, cows, tables, books, cloths. 
As the field of observation enlarges, still other objects are 
added to the list, until that which I first conceived of as the 
peculiar property of a single flower, the rose, and of a single 
specimen, no longer is appropriated in my thoughts to any 
individual object or class of objects, but becomes a general 
conception. It is an abstraction and also a generalization ; an 
abstraction because it no longer denotes or connotes any in- 
dividual object, but stands before the mind as simple, pure 
quality, red, or redness ; a generalization inasmuch as it is a 
quality pertaining equally to a great variety of objects. 

JTie Process carried still further. — Having thus obtained 
the general conception of red, and, in like manner, of blue, 
violet, yellow, indigo, orange, etc., etc., I may carry tht 
process still further, and form a corception more general 
than either, and which shall include all these. These are 
all varieties denoting the certain peculiarity of appearance 
which external objects present to the eye. Fixing my 
thought upon this, their common characteristic, I no longer 
conceive of red, or blue, or violet, as such, but of color ir 
general. 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 167 

Id like manner, I observe the properties of different tri 
angles — right-angled, obtuse-angled, acute-angled, equilat- 
eral, isosceles. I leave out of view whatever is peculiai 
to each of these varieties, retaining only what is common to 
them all — the property of three-sidedness; and my concep- 
tion is now a general one — triangle. 

It is in this manner that we form the conceptions ex- 
pressed by such terms as animal, man, virtue, form, beauty, 
and the like. A large proportion of the words in ordinary 
use, are of this sort. They are the names or expressions of 
abstract, general, conceptions : abstract, in that they do not 
relate to any individual object ; general, in that they com- 
prehend, and are equally applicable to a great variety of 
objects. 

Process of Classification, — The process of classification 
is essentially the same with that by which we form general 
abstract conceptions. Observing different objects, I find 
that they resemble each other in certain respects, while in 
others they differ. Objects A, B, and C, differ, for instance, 
m form, and size, and weight, and fragrance, but ^gree in 
some other respect, as in color. On the ground of this 
resemblance, I class them together in my conceptions. In 
so doing, I leave out of view all other peculiarities, the 
points in which they differ, and take into account only the 
one circumstance in which they agree. In the very act of 
forming a class, I have formed a general conception, which 
lies at the basis of that classification. 

Tendency of the Mind, — The tendency of the mind to 
group individual objects together on the ground of perceive 1 
resemblances, is very strong, and must be regarded as ono 
of the universal and instinctive propensities of our nature, 
one of the laws of mental action. As we have alreadv re- 
marked, respecting general abstract terms, a large portion 
of the language of ordinary life is the language of classifica- 
tion. The words which constitute by far the greater part 
of the names of things, are common nouiis, that is, names of 



168 THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 

classes. The names of individual objects are compaiatively 
few. Adjectives, specifying the qualities of objects, denote 
groups or classes possessing that common quality. Adverbs 
qualifying verbs or adjectives, designate varieties or classes 
of action and of quality. Indeed, the very existence of Ian 
guage as a medium of communication, and means of expres- 
sion, involves and depends upon this tendency of the mind to 
class together, and then to designate by a common noun, 
objects diverse in reality, but agreeing in some prominent 
points of resemblance. In no other way would language be 
possible to man, since, to designate each individual object by 
a name peculiar to itself, would be an undertaking altogether 
impracticable. 

Rudeness of the earlier Attempts. — The first efforts of 
the mind at the process of classification are, doubtless, rude 
and imperfect. The infancy of the individual, and the in- 
fancy of nations and races, are, in this respect, alike ; objects 
are grouped roughly and in the mass, specific differences 
are overlooked, and individuals differing widely and essen- 
tially are thrown into the same class, on the ground of some 
observed and striking resemblance. As observation be- 
comes more minute, and the mind advances in culture and 
power of discrimination, these ruder generalizations are either 
abandoned or subdivided into genera and species, and the 
process assumes a scientific form. What was at first mere 
classification, becomes now, in the strictest sense, generaliza- 
tion, 

Scientific Classification, — Classification, however scien- 
tific, is still essentially the process already described. We 
observe a number of individuals, for example, of our own 
tjpecies. Certain resemblances and differences strike us. 
Some have straight hair, and copper complexion, others, 
woolly hair, and black complexion, others, again, differ from 
the preceding in both these respects. Neglecting minor and 
specific differences, we fix our attention on the grapd points 
of resemblance, and thus form a general conception, which 



THE SVNTHETrC PROCESS. 109 

embraces whatever characteristics belong, in common, to 
the several individuals which thus resemble each othei*. To 
this general conception we appropriate the name Indian, 
Negro, Caucasian, etc., which henceforth represent to us so 
many classes or varieties of the human race. Bringing these 
classes again into comparison with each other, we observe 
certain points of resemblance between them, and form a con- 
ception still more general, that of man. 

Further Illustration of the same Process, — In this way 
the genera and species of science are formed. On grounds 
df observed resemblance, we class together, for example, 
certain animals. They differ fi-om each other in color, size, 
and many other respects, but agree in certain characteristics 
which we find invariable, as, for example, the form of the 
skeleton, number of vertebrae, number and form of teeth, 
arrangement of organs of digestion. We give a name to 
the class thus formed — carnivora, rodentia, etc. The class 
thus formed and named, we term the genus, while the minor 
differences mark the subordinate varieties or species in- 
cluded under the genus. In the same way, comparing other 
animals, we form other genera. Bringing the several genera 
also into comparison, we find them likewise agreeing in 
certain broad resemblances. These points of agreement, id 
turn, constitute the elements of a conception and classifica- 
tion still wider and more comprehensive than the former. 
Under this new conception I unite the previous genera, and 
term them all mammalia. And so on to the highest and 
widest generalizations of science. 

Having formal our classification we refer any new speci- 
men to some op<^ of the classes already formed, and the 
more complete our original survey, the more correct is this 
process of individual arrangement. It is remarked by Mr. 
Stewart, that the islanders of the Pacific, who had never seen 
any species of quadruped, except the hog and the goat, 
naturally inferred, when they saw a cow, that she nmst be- 
long to one or the other of these classes. The limitations oi 



170 . THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS 

Human knowledge mav lead the wisest philosopher into 
essentially the same error. 

It is in the way now described that we form genera, and 
species, and the various classes into which, for purposes of 
science, we divide the multitude of objects which are pre 
sented in nature, and which, but for this faculty, would ap 
peai CO us but a confused and chaotic assemblage without 
number, order, or arrangement. The individuals exist in 
nature — not the classes, and orders, and species : these 
are the creations of the human mind, conceptions of the 
brain, results of that process of thought now described as 
the reflective faculty in its synthetic form. 

Importance of this Process. — It is evident at a glance 
that this process lies at the foundation of aU science. Had 
we no power of generaUzation — had we no power of sepa- 
rating, in our thoughts, the quality from the substance to 
which it pertains, of going beyond the concrete to the ab- 
stract, beyond the particular to the general — could we deal 
only with individual existences, neither comparison nor clas- 
sification would be possible ; each particular individual object 
would be a study to us by itself, nor would any amount of 
diligence ever carry us beyond the very alphabet of knowl 
edge. 

Existence of general Conceptions questioned. — Import^ 
ant as this faculty may seem when thus regarded, it has 
been questioned by some whether, after all, we have, in fact* 
or can have, any general abstract ideas ; whether triangle, 
man, animal, etc., suggest in reality any thing more to thb 
mind than simply some particular man, or triangle, cr am 
mal, which we take to represent the whole class to which 
the individual belongs. 

There can be no question, however, that we do distin- 
guish in our minds the thought of some particular man, as 
Mr. A, or some particular sort of man, as black man, white 
man, from the thought suggested by the term man ; and 
ihe thought of an isosceles or right-angled triangle, fioiu 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 171 

the thought suggested by the unqualified term triangle. 
They do not mean the same thing ; they have not the 
Bame value to our minds. Now there are a great multi- 
tude of such general terms in every language, they have 2 
definite meaning and value, and we know what they mean 
It must be then that we have general abstract ideas, or gen- 
eral conceptions. 

Argument of the JVbminaUst. — But the nominalist re- 
plies. The term man, or triangle, awakens in your mind, in 
reality and directly, only the idea of some particular indi 
vidual or triangle, and this stands as a sort of t]/pe or repii^er 
mentation of other like individuals of whom you do not defi- 
nitely think as such and so many. I reply, this cannot be 
shown ; but even if it were so, the very language of the ob- 
jection implies the power of having general conceptions. 
If the individual man or triangle thought of stands as a typo 
or representation, as it is said, of a great number of similar 
men and triangles, then is there not already in my mind, 
prior to this act of representation, the idea of a cla^s of ob- 
jects^ arranged according to the law of resemblance, in 
other words, a general abstract idea or conception ? If I 
had not already formed such an idea, the particular object 
presented to my thoughts could not stand as tvpe or rep- 
resentation of any such thing, or of any thing beyond it- 
self, for the simple reason that there would be nothing of thb 
sort to represent. 

Further Reply, — Besides, there is a large class of general 
terms to which this reasoning of the nominalist would not 
at all apply — such terms as virtue, vice, knowledge, wis- 
dom, truth, time, space — which manifestly do not awa- 
ken in the mind the thought of any particular virtue or 
vice, any particular truth, any definite time, any definite 
space, but a general notion under which all particular in 
stances may be included. To this the nominalist will per 
haps reply, that in such cases we are really thinking, after 
ftU, of mere names or sign^^y as when we use the algebraic 



172 THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 

formula aj—y, a mere term, of convenience, having indeed 
some value, we do not know precisely what, itself the ter 
minus and object of our thought for the time being. In 
such cases the mii.d stops, he would say, with the term it- 
self, and does not go beyond it to conjure up a general 
conception for it. So it is with the terms virtue, vice ; so 
with the general terms, class, species, genus, man, animal, 
triangle ; they are mere collective terms, signs^ formulas 
of convenience, to which you attach no more meaning than 
to the expression x—y. If you would find their mean- 
ing and attach any definite idea to them, you must resolve 
them into the Jt9ar^^c^^tor objects, the particular vices, virtues, 
etc., which go to make up the class. 

I reply to all this, you are still classifying, still forming a 
general conception, the expression of which is your so called 
formula, x—y^ alias virtue, man, and the Hke. 

§11. — Province and Relation op several Terms employed to 
DENOTE, IN Part, or as a "Whole, this Power of the Mind. 

We are now prepared to consider the proper province 
und relation of several terms frequently employed, with 
considerably latitude and diversity of meaning, to denote, 
in part, or as a whole, the process now described. Such are 
the terms abstraction^ generalization^ classification^ and 
iudgment, 

I. Abstraction. 

Term often used in a Wide Sense. — This term is fre* 
^uently employed to denote the entire synthetic process as 
now described — the power of forming abstract general con 
ceptions, and of classifying objects according to those con- 
ceptions. It is thus employed by Stewat-t, Wayland, Mahan, 
and others. There is, perhaps, no objection to th?s use of 
the word, except that it is manifestly a itoparfcure from the 
strict and proper sense of the term. 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 173 

Jifore limited Sense. — There is another and more conk 
mon use of the term abstraction, which gives it a more 
limited sense. As thus employed, it denotes that act of the 
mind by which we ^x. our attention on some one of the sev- 
eral part<^ properties, or qualities of an object, to the exclu 
«ion of all the other parts or properties which go to make 
ap the complex whole. In consequence of this exclusive 
direction of the thoughts to that one element, the other ele» 
ments or properties are lost sight of, drop out of the ao 
count, and there remains in our present conception only 
that one item which we have singled out from the rest. 
This is denominated, in common language, abstraction. . 
Such is the common idea and definition of that term. I< 
IS Mr. Upham's definition. 

This not really Abstraction, — Whether this, again, is the 
true idea of abstraction, is, to say the least, questionable. 
WTien I think of the cover of a book, the handle of a door, 
the spring of a watch, in distinction from the other parts 
which make up a complex whole, I am hardly exercising 
tlie power of abstract thought ; certainly no new, distinct 
taculty is requisite for this, but simply attention to one 
among several items or objects of perception. Hardly ever 
can it be called analysis, with Wayland. It is the simple di- 
rection of the thought to some one out of several objects 
presented. A red rose is before me. I may think of its 
jolor exclusively, in distinction from its form and fragrance ; 
that is, of the redness of this particular rose, this given 
surface before me. The object of my thought is purely a 
sensible object. I have not abstracted it from the sensible 
individual object to which it belongs. It is in no sense an 
abstract idea, a pure conception. There has been nothing 
done which is not done in any case where one thing, rather 
than another o± a group or assemblage of objects, is made 
the object of attencion. 

The true Natuie of Abstraction, — But suppose now 
Ihat instead of thinking of the redness of this rose m par* 



1'74 THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS 

ticular, I think of llie color red in general, without refer- 
ence to the rose or any other substance ; or, to carry the pro 
cess further, of color in general, without specifying in my 
thought any particular color, evidently 1 am dealing now 
with abstractions. I have in my thought drawn away (ab- 
Btraho) the color from the substance to which it belongs, 
from all substance, and it stands forth by itself a pure con- 
ception, an abstraction, having, as such, no existence save in 
my mind, but there it does exist a definite object of contem- 
plation. The form of mental activity now described, I should 
call abstraction. It is not necessary, perhaps, to assign it a 
place as a distinct faculty of the mind. It is, in reality, a 
part, and an important part, of the synthetic process already 
described. But it is not the whole of that process, and the 
term abstraction should not, therefore, in strict propriety, at 
least as now defined, be applied as a general term to desig- 
nate that class of mental operations. The synthetic process 
involves something more than mere abstraction ; viz. : 

II. Classification as Distinguished from Generali- 
zation. 

Classification. — When the general idea or conception has 
been formed in the mind, we proceed to bring together 
and arrange, on the basis of that general conception, whatever 
individual objects seem to us to fall under that general rule. 
This we call classification. Thus, forming* first the abstract, 
or general conception red, we bring together in our thought a 
variety of objects to which Ihis conception is applicable, as red 
norses, red flowers, red books, red tables, etc., etc., thus 
forming classes of objects on the ground of this common 
property. The difierence between classification and gene- 
ralization^ in so far as they are not synonymous, I take to 
bo simply this, that in the former we group and arrange 
objects according to no general law, but mere appearance 
or resemblance, often, therefore, on fanciful or arbitrary 
iS^rounds while in the latter case, we proceed according to 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS 175 

some general and scientific principle or law of classification^ 
making only those distinctions the basis of our arrangement 
which are founded in Dature, and are at once invariable and 
essential. 



IIL Judgment as Related to Classlfication. 

Judgment, — We have already spoken of that specific 
process by which, having formed a given conception, or a 
given rule, we bring the individual objects of perception and 
thought under that rule, or reject them from it, according 
as they agree or disagree with the conception we have 
formed. The process itself we have called classification. 
The mental activity thus employed is technically termed 
judgment — the power of subsuming, under a given notion 
or conception, the particular objects which properly belong 
there. Thus, the botanist, as he meets with new plants, and 
the ornithologist,as he discovers new varieties of birds, refers 
them at once to the family, the genus, the species to which 
*»hey belong. His mind runs over the generic types of the 
several classes and orders into which all plants and birds are 
divided, he perceives that his new specimen answers to the 
characteristic features of one of these families, or classes, and 
not to those of the others, and he accordingly assigns it a 
place under one, and excludes it froir the rest. So doing, 
he exercises judgment. All classification involves and de- 
pends upon this power ; closely viewed, the action of the 
mind, in the exercise of this power, amounts sunply to this, 
the perception of agreement or disagreement between two 
objects of thought. In the case supposed, the genus or 
Bpecies, as described by those who have treated of the par- 
ticular science, is one of the objects contemplated ; the new 
specimen of plant or bird, as carefully observed and studied, 
is the other. These two objects of thought are compared ; 
the one is perceived to agree or not to agree with the other ; 
an i OB the ground of this agreement or disagreement, the 



176 THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 

classificatiou is made. This perception of agreement in sueL 
a case is an act of judgment, so called. 

Not a distinct Faculty. — The form of mental activity 
now described, is hardly to be ranked as a distinct faculty 
of the mind, although it has been not unfrequently so treated 
by writers on mental science. It enters more or less fully 
into all mental operations ; like consciousness and attention, 
It is, to some extent, involved in the exercise of all the fao- 
alties, and cannot, therefore, be ranked, with propriety, as 
coordinate with them. It is not confined to the investiga- 
tions of science, but is an activity constantly exercised by 
all men. We have in our minds a multitude of general 
conceptions, the result of previous observation and thought. 
Every moment some new object presents itself. With thi^^ 
quickness of thought, we find its place among the concep- 
tions already in the mind : it agrees with this, it is incom- 
patible with that, it belongs with the one, it is excluded 
from the other. This is the form of most of our thinking ; 
indeed, no small part of our mental activity consists iu this 
perception of argreements and disagreements, and in the re- 
ferring of some particular object of experience, some individ- 
ual conception, to the class or general conception under which 
it properly belongs. The expression of such a judgment is 
a proposition. We think in propositions, which are only 
mdgments mentally expressed. We discourse in proposi- 
tions, which are judgments orally expressed. We cannot 
frame a proposition which does not affirm, or deny, or call 
in question, something of something. 

Judgment in relation to Knowledge, — Are judgment and 
knowledge identical? Is all knowledge only some form 
of judgment? So Kant, Tissot, and other writers of that 
school, would affirm. " Judgment is the principal operation 
of the mind, since it is concerned in all knowledge properly 
so called." " All our knowledges are judgments. To know, 
is to distinguish, and to distinguish, is at once to affirm, and 
to deny." Such wa? also Dr. Reid's doctrme, in opposition 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 177 

to Locke, who distinguislied between knowledge and judg 
meat. Reid, on the contrary, regards knowledge as only 
one class of judgments, namely, those about which we ara 
most positive and certain. According to this view, judg- 
ment seems to cover the whole field of mental activity. Sir 
William Hamilton thus regards it. We cannot even expe- 
rience a sensation, he maintains, without the mental affirma^ 
Aon or judgment that we are thus and thus affected. 

Common Speech distinguishes them, — It must be ad- 
mitted, however, that in common use there is a distinction 
between knowing and judging, the one implying the com- 
parative certainty of the thing know^n, the other implying 
gome room and ground for doubt, the existence of opinion 
and belief, rather than of positive knowledge. The word 
itself, both in its primitive signification, and its derivation, 
indicating, as it does, the decision by legal tribunal of 
doubtful cases, favors this usage. That an exercise of judg 
ment is, strictly speaking, involved in all knowledge, is, 
nevertheless true, since, to know that a thing is thus and 
thus, and not otherwise, is to distinguish it from othei 
things, and that is to judge. 



§ III. — Historical Sketch. 

The .Realist and Nominalist Controversy. 

The Question at Issue. — No questioii has been mon 
earnestly and even more bitterly discussed, in the whole 
history of philosophical inquiry, than the point at issue be- 
tween the Realist and Nominalist, as to what is the precise 
object of thought when we form an abstract general concep- 
Jon. When I use the term man, for example, is it a mere 
nay^%e^ and nothing more, or is there a real existence corre 
sponding to that name, or is it neither a mere nanxe on the 
one hand, nor, on the other, a real existence, but a con- 
ception of my own mind^ ^hich is the object of thought ? 

8* 



178 THE SYNTHETIC TROCESS. 

These three answers can be made, tliese three docti^nea 
held, and essentially only these three. Each has been actu 
ally maintained with great ability and acuteness. The 
rames by which the three doctrines are respectively desig- 
nated are, Realism, NominaUsm, and Conceptualism. 

Early History of Realism. — Of these doctrines, the 
former, Realism, was the first to develop itself. To say 
nothing of the ancients, we find traces of it in modern 
philosophy, as early as the ninth century. Indeed, it would 
seem to have been the prevalent doctrine, though not 
clearly and sharply defined ; a belief, as Tissot has well ex- 
pressed it, " spontaneous, blind, and without self-conscious- 
ness." John Scotus Erigena, and St. Anselm, Archbishop 
of Canterbury, both philosophers of note, together with 
many others of less distinction, in the ninth, tenth, and 
eleventh centuries, were prominent Realists. The Platonic 
view may, in fact, be said to have prevailed down to that 
period. The early fathers of the Christian Church were 
strongly tinged with Platonism, and the Realistic theory ac- 
cordingly very naturally engrafted itself upon the philosophy 
of the middle ages. The logical and the ontological, exist 
ence as mere thought of the mind, and existence as reality^ 
were not distinguished by the leading minds of those cen- 
turies. The reality of the thought as thought, and the 
reality of an actual existence, corresponding to that thought, 
were confounded the one with the other. As the rose of 
which I conceive has existence apart from my conception, so 
man, plant, tree, animal, are realities, and not mere concef^^ 
tions of the mind. ^ 

Rise of Nominalism, — It was not till nearly the close of 
the eleventh century, that the announcement of the oppo- 
site doctrine was distinctly made, in opposition to the preva- 
lent views. This was done by Roscelinus, who maintained 
that universal and general ideas have no objective reality; 
that the only reality is that of the individuals comprised 
under these genera; that there are no such existences aei 



THE SYNTHETIC PROCESS. 17<J 

man, animal, beauty, virtue, etc. ; that generality is only a 
pure form given by the mind to the matter of Us ideas, a 
pure abstraction, a mere name. 

In this we have the opposite extreme of Realism. If the 
Realist went too far in affirming the objective reality of hi^ 
conception, the Nominalist erred on the other in overlooking 
nts subjective reality as a mode or state of the mind, and ra 
ducing it to a mere name. 

Dispute becomes theological, — The dispute now, unfor. 
tuuately, but almost inevitably, became theological. The 
Realist accused the Nominalist of virtually denying the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, inasmuch as, according to him, the idea 
of Trinity is only an abstraction, and there is no Being coi- 
responding to that idea. To this, Roscelinus replied, with 
at least equal force and truth, that on the same ground the 
Realist denied the doctrine of divine unity, by holding a doc- 
trine utterly incompatible with it. Roscelinus, however, 
was defeated, if not in argument, at least by numbers an(? 
authority, and was condemned by council at the close of the 
eleventh century. 

Mise of Conceptualism, — It was about this time, that 
Abelard, pupil of Roscelinus, proposed a modified view of 
the matter, avoiding the extreme position both of the 
Realist and the Nominalist party, and allowing the subjective^ 
but not the objective reality, of general ideas. This is substan 
tially the doctrine of Conceptualism. The general abstract 
idea of man, rose, mountain, etc., has indeed no existence or 
reality as an external object, nor is there aniong externa! 
objects any thing corresponding to this idea ; but it has, 
nevertheless, a reality and existence as a thought, a concep- 
tion of my mind. 

Prevalence of Realism duririg the twelfth and thirteenth 
Centuries, — The doctrine, as thus modified, gained some 
prevalence, but was condemned by successive councils and 
by the Pope. Sustained by such authority, as well as by 
the name? of men greatly distinguisned for learning and 



180 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

{►hilosophy, Realism prevailed over its antagonists during tho 
latter part of the twelfth and the whole of the thirteenth 
ijcrntmy. The fourteenth witnessed again the rise and 
spread of the Conceptualist theory, under the leadership of 
Occam. The dispute was bitter, leading to strife and even 
blood. 

Later History of the Discussion. — In the seventeenth 
century we find Hobbes, Hume, and Berkley advocating the 
doctrine of the Nominalists, while Price maintains the side 
of Realism. Locke and Reid were Conceptualists, Stewart 
a Nominalist. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ANALYTIC PROCESS— REASONING. 

delation to the Synthetic Process. — We have thus fai 
considered that form or process of the reflective faculty, by 
which we combine the elements of individual complex con- 
coptions, to form general conceptions and classes, on the basis 
of perceived agreements and difierences. This we have 
termed the synthetic process. The divisive or analytic process 
remains to be considered. This, as the name denotes, is, so 
far as regards the method of procedure, the opposite of the 
^brmer. We no longer put together, but take apart, no 
longer combine the many to form one, but from the general 
complex whole, as already formed and announced, we evolve 
^he particular which lios included in it. This process com- 
prehends what is generally called analysis, and also reason- 

ing, 

In discussing this most important mental process, we shall 
have occasion to treat more particularly of its nature^ its 
fovms^ aid its modes. 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 181 

§ L — The Nature of the Process. 

Conceptions often Complex, — It was remarked, in speak- 
ing of our conceptions, that many of them are complex. 
My notion of a table, for example, is that of an object 
possessing certain qualities, as form, size, weight, color, 
hardness, each of which qualities is known to me by a 
distinct act of perception, if not by a distinct sense, and each 
of which is capable, accordingly, of being distinctly, and by 
itself, an object of thought or conception. The understand- 
ing combines these several conceptions, and thus forms the 
complex notion of a table. The notion thus formed, is nei- 
ther more nor less than the aggregate, or combination of 
the several elementary conceptions already indicated. When 
I am called on to define my complex conception, I can only 
specify these several elementary notions which go to make 
up my idea of the table. I can say it is an object round, or 
square, of such or such magnitude, that it i^ of such or such 
material, of this or that color, and designed for such and 
such uses. 

Virtual Analysis of complex Conceptions. — Now when 
I affirm that the table is round, I state one of the several 
qualities of the object so called, one of the several parts of 
the complex notion. It is a partial analysis of that complex 
conception. I separate from the whole, one of its component 
parts, and then affirm that it sustains the relation of a part 
to the comprehensive whole. The separation is a virtual 
analysis. The affirmation is an act of judgment expressed 
in the form of a proposition. Every proposition is, in fact, a 
species of synthesis, and implies the previous analysis of the 
conception, or comprehensive whole, whose component part3 
are thus brought together. Thus, when I say snow is white, 
min is mortal, the earth is round, I simply affirm of the 
object designated, one of the qualities which go to make up 
my conception of that object. Every such statement oi 
proposition involves an analysis of the complex conceptiou 



182 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

which forms the subject of the proposition, \vhile the thing 
predicated or affirmed is, that the quahty designated -the 
result of such analysis — is cue of the parts constituting 
that complex whole. 

Reasoning^ what, - — Reasoning is simply a series of such 
propositions following in consecutive order, in which this 
analysis is carried out more or less minutely. Thus, when 
I affirm that man is mortal, I resolve my complex notion of 
man into its component parts, among which I find the attri- 
bute of mortaUty, and this attribute I then proceed to affirnj 
of the subject, man. I simply evolve, and distinctly an- 
nounce, what was involved in the term man. But this term 
expresses not merely a complex, but a general notion. 
Resolving it as such into its individual elements, I find it to 
comprehend among the rest, a certain person, Socrates, e, g,^ 
and the result of this analysis I state in the proposition, 
Socrates is a man. But on the principle that what is true 
of a class must be true of the individuals composing it, it 
lollows that the mortality already predicated of the class, 
man, is an attribute of the individual, Socrates. When I 
affirm, then, that Socrates is mortal, I announce, in reality, 
only what was virtually implied in the first proposition — 
man is mortal. I have analyzed the complex general con- 
ception, man, have found involved in it the particular con- 
ception, mortal, and the individual conception, Socrates, and 
by a subsequent synthesis have brought together these 
results in the proposition, Socrates is mortal, a proposition 
which sustains to the affirmation, man is mortal, the simple 
relation of a part to the whole. 

Heasoning and Analysis^ how related. — This analytic 
process, as applied to propositions, for the purpose of evolving 
from a complex general statement, whatever is involved or 
virtually contained in it, is called reasoning ; as applied not 
to propositions, but to simple conceptions merely, it is known 
as simple analysis. The psychological process is, in eithei 
case, one and the same. 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 183 

Illustration by Dr, Brown, — Dr. Brown has well illu* 
trated the nature of the reasoning process in its relation to 
the general proposition with which we set out, by reference 
to the germ enclosed in the bulb of the plant. " The truths 
at which we arrive, by repeated intellectual analysis, may be 
said to resemble the premature plant which is to be found 
enclosed in that which is itself enclosed in the bulb, or seed 
which we dissect. We must carry on our dissection more 
and more minutely to arrive at each new germ ; but we do 
arrive at one after the other, and when our dissection is 
obliged to stop, we have reason to suppose that still finer 
instruments, and still finer eyes, might prosecute the dis- 
covery almost to infinity. It is the same in the discovery 
of the truths of reasoning. The stage at which one inquirer 
stops is not the limit of analysis in reference to the object, 
but the limit of the analytic power of the individaal. In- 
quirer after inquirer discovers truths which were involved 
in truths formerly admitted by us, without our being able to 
perceive what was comprehended in our admission. * * * 
There may be races of beings, at least we can conceive of 
races of beings, whose senses would enable them to perceive 
the ultimate embryo plant enclosed in its innumerable series 
of preceding germs ; and there may, perhaps, be created pow 
ers of some higher order, as we know" that there is one Eter. 
nal Power, able to feel, in a single comprehensive thought, 
all those truths, of which the generations of mankind are 
able, by successive analyses, to discover only a few, that are, 
perhaps, to the great truths which they contain, only as the 
flower, which is blossoming before us, is to that infinity of 
future blossoms enveloped in it, with which, in ever reno 
vated boauty, it is to adorn the summers of other ages." 

Inquiry suggested. — But here the inquiry may arise 
IIow happens it that, if the reasonings which conduct to the 
profoundest and most important truths, are but successive 
and continued analyses of our previous conceptions, we 
fiiould have admitted those preceding truths and concep 



184 THE ANALYTIC PKOCESS. 

tions without a suspicion of the results involved in them I 
The reason is probably to be found, as Dr. Brown suggests, 
in the fact that in the process of generalizing we form classes 
and orders before distinguishing the minuter varieties ; we 
are struck with some obvious points of agreement which lead 
us to give a common place and a common term to the ob- 
jects of such resemblance, and this very circumstance oi 
agreement which we perceive, may involve other circum- 
stances which we do not at the time perceive, but which are 
disclosed on minute and subsequent attention, " It is as if 
we knew the situations and bearings of all the great cities 
in Europe, and could lay down, with most accurate precis- 
ion, their longitude and latitude. To know thus much, is 
to know that a certain space must intervene between them, 
but it is not to know what that space contains. The process 
of reasoning, in the discoveries which it gives, is like that 
topographic inquiry which fills up the intervals of our map, 
placing here a forest, there a long extent of plains, and be- 
yond them a still longer range of mountains, till we see, at 
last, innumerable objects connected with each other in that 
space which before presented to us only a few points of mu- 
tual bearing." 

The Position further argued from the Nature of the Sylr 
logism. -— That all deductive reasoning, at least, is essen- 
tially what has now been described, an analytic process, ia 
evident from the fact that the syllogism to which all such 
argument may be reduced, is based upon the admitted prin- 
ciple that whatever is true of the class, is true of all the in- 
dividuals comprehended under it. Something is affirmed ol 
a given class ; an individual or individuals are then affirmed 
to belong to that class ; and on the strength of the prin- 
ciple just stated, it is thereupon affirmed that wha^. was pre- 
dicated of the class is also true of the individual. Nothing 
can be plainer than that In this process we are working from 
the given whole to the comprehended parts, from the 
complex conception stated at the oustet, to the truths ^.hat 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 186 

de hidden and involved in it. In other words, it is a process 
of analysis which we thus perform, and as all reasoning, 
when scientifically stated, is brought under this form, it fol 
lows that all reasoning is essentially analytic in its nature. 

Inductive Reasoning no Mjcception, — It maybe supposed 
that the inductive method of reasoning is an exception to 
this rule, inasmuch as we proceed, in that case, not from the 
general to the particular, but the reverse. Whatever maj 
be true of deduction, is not induction essentially a synthetic 
process ? So it might, at first, appear. I have observed, 
for example, that several animals of a particular species, 
sheep, for instance, chew the cud. Having observed this in 
several instances, I presently conclude that the same is true 
of the whole class to which these several individuals belong, 
in other words, that all sheep are ruminant. Extending my 
observation further, I find other species of animals likewise 
chewing the cud. I observe, moreover, that every animal, 
possessing this characteristic, is distinguished by the circum- 
stance of having horns and cloven hoofs ; I find, so far as 
my observation goes, the two things always associated, and 
hence am led, on observing the one, immediately to infer 
the other. The proposition that was at the outset particu* 
lar, now becomes general, viz., all animals that have horns 
and cloven hoofs are ruminant. Is the conclusion at which 
I thus arrive, involved in the premiss with which I start ? 
Is the fact that all homed and cloven-footed animals are 
ruminant, implied and contained in the fact that some 
horned and cloven-footed animals, that is, so many as I have 
observed, are so ? 

Even here the Evidence of the Conclusion lies in ths 
Premiss, — A little reflection will convince us that these 
questions are to be answered in the affirmative. If the con- 
clusion be itself correct and true, then it is a truth involved 
in the previous proposition • for whatever evidence I have 
of the truth of my conclusion, that all animals of this sort 
are rnminant, is manifestly derived from, and therefore con- 



IR6 THE ANALYTIC JKOCESS. 

tained in, the fact that such as I have observed are so. 1 
have no other evidence in the case supposed. If this evi- 
dence is insufficient, then the conclusion is not estabhshed. 
If it be sufficient, then the conclusion which it establishes, 
is derived from and involved in it. 

The argument fully and scientifically stated, runs thus : 

A, B, C, animals observed, are ruminant. But A, B, 0, 
represent the class Z to which they belong. 

Therefore, class Z is ruminant. 

Admitting now the correctness of my observation in re- 
ispect to A, B, C, that they are ruminant, the argument 
turns entirely upon the second proposition that A, B, C, rep- 
resent the class Z, so that what is true of them in this re- 
spect, is true of the whole class. If A, B, C, do represent 
the class Z, then to say that A, B, C, are ruminant, is to say 
that Z is so. The one is contained in the other. If they do 
not^ then the conclusion is itself groundless, and there is no 
occasion to inquire in what it is contained, or whether it is 
contained in any thing. It is no longer a vaHd argument 
and therefore cannot be brought in evidence that some 
reasoning is not analytic. 

WTiat sort of Propositions constitute Reasoning. — It \9 
hardly necessary to state that not any and every series of 
propositions constitute reasoning. The propositions must 
be consecutive, following in a certain order, and not only 
so, but must be in such a manner connected with and re- 
lated to each other, that the truth of the final proposition 
shall be manifest from the propositions which precede. To 
affirm that snow is white, that gold is more valuable than 
silver, and that virtue is the only sure road to happiness, is 
to state a series of propositions, each one of which is true, 
but which have no such relation to each other as to consti- 
tute an argument. The truth of the last proposition doei 
uot follow from the truth of the preceding onea, 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 187 

§11. — Eelation of Judgment aitd REASONma 

Judgment Synthetic^ JReasoning Analytic. — The rela- 
tion of judgment and reasoning to each other becomes evi- 
dent from what has been said of the nature of the reasoning 
process. Judgment is essentially synthetic. Reasoning, 
essentially analytic. The former combines, affirms one 
thing to be true of another ; the latter divides, declares one 
truth to be contained in another. All reasoning involves 
judgment, but all judgment is not reasoning. The several 
propositions that constitute a chain of reasoning, are so many 
distinct judgments. Reasoning is the evolution or deriva- 
tion of one of these judgments, viz., the conclusion, from 
another, viz., the premiss. It is the process by which we 
arrive at some of our judgments, 

Mr, StewarPs View. — Reasoning is frequently defined as 
a combination of judgments, in order to reach a result not 
otherwise obvious. Mr. Stewart compares our several judg- 
ments to the separate blocks of stone which the builder has 
prepared, and which lie upon the ground, upon any one of 
which a person may elevate himself a slight distance from 
the ground ; while these same judgments, combined in a 
process of reasoning, he likens to those same blocks con- 
verted now, by the builder's art,^ into a grand staircase lead- 
ing to the summit of some lofty tower. It is a simple com- 
bination of separate judgments, nor is there any thing in the 
last step of the series differing at all in its nature, says Mr 
Stewart, from the first step. Each step is precisely like 
every other, and the process of reaching the top is simply 
a repetition of the act by which the first step is reached. 

This View called in Question.-— It is evident that this 
position is not in accordance with the general view which wo 
have maintained of the nature of the reasoning process. 
According to this view, reasoning is not so much a combina- 
tion as an analysis of judgments ; nor is the last of the several 
propositions in a chain of argument of the same nature pre- 



188 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS* 

cisely as the first. It is, like the first, a judgment, but unlike 
the first, it is a particular sort of judgment, viz., an inference 
3r conclusion, a judgment involved in and derived from the 
former. 

In the series of propositions, A is B, B is C, therefore A 
IS C, the act of mind by which I perceive that A is B, or 
that B is C, is not of the same natTure with that by which I 
perceive the consequent truth that A is C ; no mere repeti 
tion of the former act would amount to the latter. There id 
a new sort of judgment in the latter case, a deduction from 
the former. In order to reach it, I must not merely per- 
ceive that A is B, and that B is C, but must also perceive 
the connection of the two propositions, and what is involved 
in them. It is only by bringing together in the mind these 
two propositions, that I perceive the new truth, not other- 
wise obvious, that A is C, and the state or act of mind in- 
volved in this latter step seems to me a different one from 
that by which I reach the former judgments. 

§ in. — Different KiNit/S op REASONiNa. 

Two Kinds of Truth, — - The most natural division is that 
according to the subject-matter, or the materials of the work. 
The truths which constitute the material of our reasoning 
process are of two kinds, necessary^ and contingent. That 
two straight lines cannot enclose a space, that the whole is 
greater than any one of its parts, are examples of the former. 
That the earth is an oblate spheroid, moves in an elliptical 
orbit, and is attended by one satellite, are examples of the 
latter. 

I%e Difference lies in what. — The difference is not that 
one is any less certain than the other, but of the one you 
cann'>t conceive the opposite, of the other you can. That 
three times three are nine, is no more true and certain, than 
that Caesar invaded Britain, or that the sun will rise to-mor- 
row a few minutes <'^rlier or later than to-day. But the ona 



THE ANALYTIC PR0CES8« 1^9 

admits of the contrary supposition without absurdity, the 
other does not ; the one is contingent, the other necessary 
Now these two classes of truths, differing as they do, in this 
important particular, admit of, and require, very different 
methods of reasoning. The one class is susceptible of demon' 
Gtration^ the other admits only that species of reasoning 
called probable or moral. It must be remembered, however 
that when we thus speak we do not mean that this latter 
class of truths is deficient in proof; the word probable is not, 
as thus used, opposed to certainty^ but only to demonstrjr 
tion. That there is such a city as Rome, or London, is just 
as certain as that the several angles of a triangle are equal 
to two right-angles ; but the evidence which substantiates the 
one is of a very different nature from that of the other. The 
one can be demonstrated, the other cannot. The one is an 
eternal and necessary truth, subject to no contingence, no 
possibility of the opposite. The other is of the nature of an 
event taking place in time, and dependent on the will of 
man, and might, without any absurdity, be supposed not to 
be as it is. 

I. Demonstrative Reasoning. 

Field of Demonstrative Reasoning, — Its field, as we have 
seen, is necessary truth. It is limited, therefore, in its range, 
takes in only things abstract, conceptions rather than reali- 
ties, the relations of things rather than things themselves, as 
existences. It is confined principally, if not entirely, to 
mathematical truths. 

No degrees of Evidence. — There are no degrees of ctI 
3ence or certainty in truths of this nature. Every step 
follows irresistibly from the preceding. Every conclusion is 
mevitable. One demonstration is as good as another, so lai 
as regards the certainty of the conclusion, and one is aa 
good as a thousand. It is quite otherwise in probable rea 
soning. 

^Vwo Modes of Procedure. — In demonstration, we may 



190 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

proceed directly, or indirectly ; as, e, g,^ in case of two trian- 
gles to be proved equal. I may, by super-position, prove 
this directly ; or I may suppose them unequal, and proceed 
to show the absurdity of such a supposition ; or I may make 
a number of suppositions, one or the other of which must be 
true, and then show that all but the one which I wish to 
istablish are false. 

Force of Mathematical reasoning, — The question arises 
•rhence the peculiar force of mathematical, in distinction from 
other reasoning ? — a fact observed by every one, but not 
easily explained : how happens this, and on what does it 
depend, this irresistible cogency wKxCh compels our assent ? 
Is it owing to the pains taken to define the terms employed, 
and the strict adherence to those definitions ? I think not ; 
for other sciences approximate to mathematics in this, but 
not to the cogency of its reasoning. The explanation given 
by Stewart is certainly plausible. He ascribes the peculiar 
force of demonstrative reasoning to the fact, that the first 
principles from which it sets out, i, 6., its definitions, are 
purely hypothetical^ involving no basis or admixture of facts. 
and that by simply reasoning strictly upon these assumed 
hypotheses the conclusions follow irresistibly. The same 
thing would happen in any other science, could we (as we 
cannot) construct our definitions to suit ourselves, instead 
of proceeding upon facts as our data. The same view is 
ably maintained by other writers. 

If this be so, the superior certainty of mathematical, 
over all other modes of reasoning, if it does not quite 
vanish, becomes of much less consequence than is generallj 
supposed. Its truths are necessary in no other sense than 
that certain definitions being assumed, certain suppositions 
made,, then the certain other things follow, which is no more 
<;han may be said of any science. 

Confirmation of this View, — It may be argued, as a con- 
firmation of this view, that whenever mathematical reason- 
ing comes to be applied to sciences involving facts eitbcT 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 191 

as the data, or as objects of investigation, where it is no longei 
possible to proceed entirely upon hypothesis, as, e, g,^ when 
you apply it to mechanics, physics, astronomy, practical 
geometry, etc., then it ceases to be demonstrative, and be 
comes merely probable reasoning. 

Mathematical reasoning supposed hy some to he iden- 
tical. — It has been much discussed whether all mathematical 
reasoning is merely identical, asserting, in fact, nothing more 
than that a^=a ; that a given thing is equivalent to itself, 
capable of being resolved at last into merely this. This 
view has been maintained by Leibnitz, himself one of the 
greatest mathematicians, and by many others. It was for a 
long time the prevalent doctrine on the Continent. Condillac 
applies the same to all reasoning, and Hobbes seems to have 
had a similar view, i. 6., that all reasoning is only so much 
addition or subtraction. Against this view Stewart con 
tends that even if the propositions themselves might be 
represented by the formula a=a, it does not follow that the 
various steps of reasoning leading to the conclusion amount 
merely to that. A paper written in cipher may be said to 
be identical with the same paper as interpreted ; but the evi- 
dence on which the act of deciphering proceeds, amounts to 
something more than the perception of identity. And 
further, he denies that the propositions are identical, e. g., 
even the simple proposition 2x2=4. 2x2 express one 
set of quantities, and 4 expresses another, and the proposi- 
tion that asserts their equivalence is not identical ; it is not 
saying that the same quantity is equal to itself, but tnat two 
iifferent quantities are equivalent. 

II. Peobable Reasoning. 

Jfot opposed to Certainty, — It must be borne in mind^ 
as already stated, that the probability now mtended id 
not opposed to certainty. That Caesar invaded Britain 
IS certain^ but the reasoning which goes to establish it, is 
only probable reasoning, because the thing to be pro'-wfO i^ 



192 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

an eyent in history, contingent therefore, and not capable 
of demonstration. 

Sources of Evidence. — Evidence of this kind of truths ia 
derived from three sources : 1. Testimony ; 2. Experience ; 
3. Analogy. 

1. Evidence of Testimony. 

hi itself probable. — This is, a priori, probctble. We ar< 
so constituted as to be inclined to believe testimony, and it 
IS only when the incredibility of the witness has been ascer- 
tained by sufficient evidence, that we refuse our assent. The 
child believes whatever is told him. The man, long conver- 
sant with human affairs, becomes wary, cautious, suspicious, 
Jncreaulous. It is remarked by Reid that the evidence of 
testimony does not depend altogether on the character of 
the witness. If there be no motive for deception, especially 
if there be weighty reasons why he should speak truth, or if 
the narrative be in itself probable and consistent, and tallies 
with circumstances, it is in such cases to be received even 
from those not of unimpeachable integrity. 

Limits of Belief — What are the limits of belief m 
testimony ? Suppose the character of witnesses to be good, 
the narrative self-consistent, the testimony concurrent of 
various witnesses, explicit, positive, full, no motive for decep- 
tion ; are we to believe in that case whatever may be testi- 
fied ? One thing is certain, we do in fact believe in such 
cases ; we are so constituted. Such is the law of our nature. 
Nor can it be shown irrational to yield such assent. It has 
been shown by an eminent mathematician that it is always 
possible to assign a number of independent witnesses, sc 
great that the falsity of their concurrent testimony shall be 
mathematically more improbable, and so more incredible, 
than the truth of their statement, be it what it may. 

Case supposed. — Suppose a considerable number of men 
of undoubted veracity, should, without concert, and agree 
mg in the main as to particulars, all testify, one by one, that 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 103 

tbey witnessed, on a given day and hour, some very stranire 
occurrence, as, 6. (/., a ball of fire, or a form of angehc 
brightness, hovering in the air, over this building, or any 
like unwonted and inexplicable phenomenon. Are we tc 
withhold or yield our assent ? I reply, if the number of 
witnesses is large, and the testimony concurrent, and with- 
out concert, and no motive exists for deception, and they 
are men of known integrity, especially if they are sane and 
sober men, not easily imposed upon, I see not how we can 
reasonably withhold assent. Their testimony is to be taken 
as true testimony, ^^ 6., they did really witness the pheno- 
menon described. The proof becomes stronger or weaker 
in proportion as the circumstances now mentioned coexist to 
a greater or less extent, z.6., in proportion as there are more 
or fewer of these concurring and corroborating circum- 
stances. If there was but a single witness, or if a number 
of the witnesses were not of the best character, or if there 
were some possible motive for deception, or if they were 
not altogether agreed as to important features of the case, 
so far the testimony would of course be weakened. But 
we may always suppose a case so strong that the falsity of 
the witnesses would be a greater miracle than the truth 
of the story. This is the case with the testimony of the 
witnesses to our Saviour's miracles. 

Distinction to he made* — An important distinction is 
here to be noticed between the falsity, and the incorrectness, 
of the witness, between his intention to deceive, and his be- 
ing himself deceived. He may have seen precisely what he 
describes ; he may be mistaken in thinking it to have been 
an angel, or a spirit, or a ball of fire. Just as in the case 
of certain illusions of sense — an oar in the water — the eye 
correctly reports what it sees, but the judgment is in error, 
in thinking the oar to be crooked. So the witness may bo 
true, and the testimony true in the case of a supposed 
miracle or other strange phenomenon ; the appearance may 
have been just as stated, but the question may stir be raided, 

9 



194 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 

were the witnesses correct, in their inference, or judgment, 
as to what was the cause of the said appearance, as to what 
%t was that they saw or heard ? 

This must be decided by the rules that govern the prc^ 
i>eedings of sensible men in common affairs of life. 

2. Reasoning from Experience, 

Induction as distinguished from Deduction. — This h 
called induction^ the peculiar characteristic of which, in dis- 
tinction from deductive reasoning, is that it begins with indi- 
vidual cases, and from them infers a general conclusion, 
whereas, the deductive method starts with a general propo- 
sition, and infers a particular one. From the proposition all 
men are mortal, the syllogism infers that Socrates is mortal. 
From the iuct that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, Caesar, 
Cicero, and any number of other individuals, are mortal, in- 
duction leads you to conclude that all men are so. The 
premises here are facts occurring within the range of observ- 
ation and experience, and the reasoning proceeds on the 
principle of the general uniformity of nature and her laws. 
Induction, then, is, m other words, the process of inferring 
tliat what we know to be true in certain observed cases. 
is also true, and will be found to be true, in other hke case^ 
which have not fallen under our observation. 

JBasis of this Mode of reasoning, — The groundwork 
of induction, as I have already said, is the axiom or universal 
proposition of the uniformity of nature. Take this away, and 
all reasoning from induction or experience fails at once. 
This is a truth which the human mind is, by its nature and 
constitution, always disposed to proceed upon. It may not 
be embodied in the shape of a definite proposition, but it i% 
tacitly assumed and acted upon by all men. How came we by 
this general truth. Is it intuitive ? So say the disciples of 
certain schools, so says Cousin, and so say the Scotch meta- 
physicians, and the German. Others, however, contend that 
It is itself an induction, as truly as any other, a truth leanie^l 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 195 

from expenence and observation, and by no means the first, 
but rather among the latest of our inductions. Without 
stopping to discuss this question, it is sufficient for our pur- 
pose to notice the fact, that this simple truth is universally 
admitted, and constitutes the basis of all reasoning from ex- 
perience. 

Incorrect Mode of Statement, — The proposition is some- 
times incorrectly stated, as, e. g,^ that the future will resemble 
the past. This is not an adequate expression of the great 
truth to which we refer. It is not that the future merelv 
will resemble the past merely, but that the unknown will 
resemble the known. The idea of time is not properly con- 
nected with the subject. That which is unknown may lie in 
the future, it may lie in the present or the past. 

Limits of this JBelief — An important question here 
arises. What are the limits, if limits there are, to this belief 
of the uniformity of nature, and to the reasoning based on 
that belief? Are we warranted, in all cases, in inferrmg tnat 
the unknown will be, in similar circumstances, like the known 
— that what we have found to be true in five, ten, or fifty 
cases, and without exception, will be universally true ? We 
do reason thus very generally. Such is the tendency of the 
mind, its nature. Is it correct procedure? Is it certain 
that our experience, though it be uniform and unvaried, is 
the universal experience ? If not, if limits there are to thiij 
method of reasoning, what are they ? 

Erroneous Induction. — The inhabitants of Siam have 
never seen water in any other than a liquid or gaseous form. 
They conclude that water is never solid. The inhabitants 
of central Africa may be supposed never to have seen or 
heard of a white man. They infer that all men are black 
Are these correct inductions ? No ; for they lead to false 
conclusions. They are built on insufficient foundations. 
There was not a sufficiently wide observation of facts to 
justify so wide a conclusion. Evidently, we cannot infer 
from oui own non-observation of exceptions, that excep* 



196 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS^ 

tioDS do not exist. We must first know that if • there 
\^ere exceptions we should have known them. In both the 
cases now supposed, this was overlooked. The African has 
only «een men who were natives of Africa. There may be 
in other countries, races that he has not seen, and has had no 
opportunity to see. The world may be full of exceptions to 
this general rule, and yet he not know it. Correct induction in 
his case would be this : I have seen many men, natives of 
central Africa, and they have all been black men, without 
exception. I conclude, therefore, that all the natives of 
central Africa are black. In a word, it is only under 
like circumstances that we can infer the uniformity of 
nature, and so reason inductively from the known to the 
unknown. 

Superstitious Belief of the Ancients. — - The tendency of 
mea to believe in the universal permanence of nature, and, 
on that ground, to generalize from insufficient data, is illus 
trated in the superstitious and widely prevalent idea among 
the ancients, and some of the moderns also, of grand cycles 
of events extending both to the natural and the inoral world. 
According to this idea, the changes of the atmosphere, and 
all other natural phenomena, as observed at any time, would, 
after a period, return again in the same order of succession 
as before ; storms, and seasons, and times, being subject to 
some regular law. It was supposed, in fact, " that all the 
events " — to use the language of one of these theorists — 
*' within the immeasurable circuit of the universe, are the 
successive evolutions of an extended series, which, at the 
return of some vast period, repeats its eternal round during 
the endless flux of time." This is a sufficiently grand induc- 
tion, startling in its sweep and range of thought, but requir- 
ing for its data a somewhat wider observation of facts than 
can fall to the lot of short-lived and short-sighted man, dur 
mg the few years ol his narrow sojourn, and pilgrimage, in a 
world like this. 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 1^7 

8. Heasoning from Ayialogy, 

Meaning of the term Analogy, — This word, analogy, ii 
ased with great variety of meaning, and with much vague 
ness, therefore. It properly denotes any sort of resem 
blance, whether of relation or otherwise ; and the argument 
from analogy is an argument from resemblance, an argument 
of an inductive nature, but not amounting to complete in 
duction, A resembles B in certain respects ; therefore it 
probably resembles it, also, in a certain other respect : such 
IS the argument from analogy, A resembles B in such and 
such properties, but these are always found connected with 
a certain other property ; therefore A resembles B also in 
regard to that property : such is the argument from indue* 
Hon, Every resemblance which can be pointed out between 
A and B creates a further and increased probability that the 
resemblance holds also in respect to the property which is 
the object of inquiry. If the two resembled each other in 
all their properties, there would be no longer any doubt as 
to this one, but a positive certainty, and the more resem- 
blances in other respects so much the nearer we come to cer- 
tainty respecting the one that' happens to be in question. 

Illustration of this Principle, — It was observed by Kew- 
ton, that the diamond possessed a very high refractive 
power compared with its density. The same thing he knew 
to be true of combustible substances. Hence, he conjectui-ed 
that the diamond was combustible. He conjectured ihe 
Bame thing, and for the same reason, of water, ^. 6,, that it 
contains a combustible ingredient. In both instances, he 
guessed right — reasoning from analogy. 

Further Illustration of Reasoning from Analogy, — Reiv 
Boning from analogy, I might infer that the moon is in- 
habited, thus : The earth is inhabited — land, sea, and air, are 
all occupied with life. But the moon resembles the earth 
in figure, relation to the sun, movement, opacity, etc. ; 
moreover, it has volcanoes as the earth has \ therefore, it io 



198 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 

probably like the earth in this other respect, that of being 
inhabited. To make this out by induction, I must show that 
the moon not only resembles the earth in these several re- 
spects, but that these circumstances are in other cases ob- 
served to be connected with the one in question ; thus, in 
other cases, bodies that are opaque, spherical, and moving in 
elliptical orbits, are known to be inhabited. The same thing 
is probably true then in all cases, and inasmuch as the moon 
has these marks, it is therefore inhabited. 

Counter Probability, — On the other hand, the points of 
dissimilarity create a counter probability, as, e, g.^ the moon 
has no atmosphere, no clouds, and therefore no water ; but 
air and water are, on our planet, essential to life ; the pre- 
sumption is, then, looking at these circumstances merely, that 
the moon is uninhabited. Nay, more : if life exists, then 
it must be under very different conditions from those under 
which it exists here. Evidently, then, the greater the resem- 
blance in other respects between the two planets, the less 
probabihty that they differ in this respect (^. 6., the mode of 
sustaining Ufe), so that the resemblances already proved, 
become, themselves, presumptions against the supposition 
tihat the moon is inhabited. 

Amount of Probability, — • The analogy and diversity, 
when they come thus into competition and the arguments 
from the one conflict with those of the other, must be 
weighed against eact other. The extent of the resemblance, 
compared with the extent of the difference, gives the amount 
of probability on one side or the other, so far as these ele* 
nents are known. If any region lies unexplored, we can 
infer nothing with certainty or probability as to that. Sup 
poso.^ then, that so far a& we have had the means of observing, 
the resemblances are to the differences as four to one; we 
conclude with a probability of four to one, that any given 
propertj of the one will be found to belong to the other. 
The chances are four out of five. 

Valii6 of Analogical Reasoning, — The chief value of 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 199 

analogy, as regards science, howeyer, is as a guide to con 
jecture and to experiment ; and even a faint degree of anal- 
ogical evidence may be of great service in this way, by 
directing further inquiries into that channel, and so conduct- 
ing to eventual probability, or even certainty. 

It is well remarked by Stewart, that the tendency of cur 
nature is so to reason from analogy, that we naturally confide 
in it, as we do in the evidence of testimony. 

Liable to mislead, — It must be confessed, however, that 
it is a species of reasoning likely to mislead in many cases. 
Its chief value lies not in proving a position, but in rebutting 
objections ; it is good, not for assault, but defence. As thus 
used it is a powerful weapon in the hands of a skilful 
master. Such it was in Butler's hands. 

§ lY. — Use of Hypotheses and Theories in EEASONiNa. 

TTieory^ what, — The terms hypothesis and theory are 
often used interchangeably and loosely. Confusion is the 
result. It is difficult to define them accurately. 

Theory (from the Greek, Oecopta ; Latin, theoria ; French, 
theorie ; Italian, teoria ; from Oeajpecj^ to perceive, see, 
contemplate) denotes properly any philosophical explana- 
tion of phenomena, any connected arrangement and state- 
ment of facts according to their bearing on some real oi 
imaginary law. The facts, the phenomena, once known, 
proved, rest on independent evidence. Theory takes survey 
of them as such, with special reference to the law which 
goterns and connects them, whether that law be also known 
or merely conjectured. 

Sypothesis^ what. — Hypothesis (vno-TiOrjfjLi) denotes a 
gratuitous supposition or conjecture, in the absence of aD 
positive knowledge as to what the law is that governs and 
connects the observed phenomena, or as to the cause which 
will account for them. 

Theory may or may not be Hypothesis. — Hypothesis w, i^ 



200 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

its nature, conjectural, and therefore uncertain ; has its de* 
grees of probability — no certainty. The moment the thing 
supposed is proved true, or verified, if it ever is, it ceases to 

9 

be hypothesis. Theory, however, is not necessarily a matter 
of uncertainty. After the law or the cause is ascertained, 
fully known, and no longer a hypothesis at all, there may 
be still a theory about it ; a survey of the facts and pheno- 
mena, as they stand affected by that law, or as accounted 
for by that cause. The motion of the planets in elliptical 
orbits, was originally matter of conjecture, of hypothesis. 
It is still matter of theory. 

Probability of Hypothesis. — The probability of a hypo- 
thesis is in proportion to the number of facts or phenomena, 
in the given case, which it will satisfactorily explain, in 
other words, account for. Of several hypotheses, that is the 
most probable which will account for the greatest number 
of the given phenomena — those which, if the hypothesis be 
true, ought to fall under it as their law. If it accounts for 
all the phenomena in the case, it is generally regarded as 
having established its claim to certainty. So Whewell 
maintains. This, however, is not exactly the case. The hy- 
pothesis can be verified only by showing that the facts or 
phenomena in the case cannot possibly be accounted for on 
any other supposition, or result from any other cause ; not 
simply that they can be accounted for, or can result from 
this. This is well stated by Mill in his System of Philosophy, 
The hypothesis of the undulating movement of a subtle and 
all-pervading ether will account for many of the known 
phenomena of light ; but it has never been shown, and in . 
the nature of the case never can be, probably, that no other 
hypothesis possible or supposable will also account for them. 
Use of Hypotheses. — As to the use of hypotheses in 
science, Reid's remarks are altogether too sweeping, and quite 
mcorroct. It is not true that hypotheses lead to no valuable 
result in philosophy. Almost all discoveries were at first 
hypotheses, suppositions, lucky guesses, if you please to call 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 201 

them so. The Copernican theory that the earth revoives ot 
its axis was a mere hypothesis at the outset. Kepler's theor} 
of the elliptical orbits ol the planets was such ; he made ano 
abandoned nineteen false ones before he hit the right. Thia 
discovery led to another — that planets describe equal area^ 
in equal times. Newton never framed hypotheses, if we 
may believe him. But his own grand discovery of the law 
of gravity as the central force of the system, depends for one 
of its steps of evidence on his previous discovery that the 
force of attraction varies as the inverse square of the dis 
tance, and this was suggested by him at first as a mere 
hypothesis ; he was able to verify it only by calling in the 
aid of Kepler's discovery of equal areas in equal times, 
which latter, as already stated, was itself the result of hypo- 
thesis. Had it not been for one hypothesis of Newton, 
verified by the results of another hypothesis of Kepler, 
Newton could never have made his own discovery. 

A hypothesis, it must be remembered, is any supposi- 
tion, with or without evidence, made in order to deduce 
from it conclusions agreeable to known facts. If we succeed 
in doing this, we verify our hypothesis (unless, indeed, it 
can be shown that some other hypothesis will equally well 
suit these facts), and our hypothesis, when verified, ceases 
to be longer a hypothesis, takes its place as known truth, 
and in turn serves to explain those facts which would, on the 
supposition of its truth, follow from it as a cause. It is 
simply a short-hand process of arri\dng at conclusions in 
science. Suppose the problem to be the one already named 
— to pi'ove that the central force of the solar system is one 
and the same with gravity. Now it may not be easy, or even 
possible in some cases, to establish the first step or premiss in 
such a chain of reasoning. The inductions leading to it 
may not be forthcoming. Hypothesis steps in and supplies 
the deficiency, by substituting in place of the induction a 
supposition. Assuming that distant bodies attract each 
Ocher with a power inversely as the square of the distance. 



202 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

It proceeds on that supposition, and arrives at the desired 
cK)nclusion. 

In what Cases admissible. — Now this method is always 
allowable, and strictly scientific, whenever it is possible to 
verify our hypothesis, i. 6., in every case in which it is pos- 
Bible to show that no law but the one assumed can lead to 
these same results ; that no other hypothesis can accord with 
rtie facts. 

In the case supposed, it would not be possible to prove 
that the same movements might not follow from some other 
law than the one supposed. It is not certain, therefore, 
that the moving force of the solar system is identical with 
gravitation, merely because the latter would, if extended so 
far, produce the same results. In many other cases it is 
practicable; indeed, in all cases where the inquiry is not tc 
ascertain the cause^ but^ the cause being already Jcnown^ to 
ascertain the law of its action. 

Even in cases where the inquiry is not of this nature, 
hypothesis is of use in the suggestion of future investiga- 
tions, and, as such, is frequently indispensable. 

View of Mr. Mill. — Nearly every thing which is now 
theory, was once hypothesis, says Mill. " The process of 
tracmg regularity in any complicated, and, at first sight, con 
fused set of appearances, is necessarily tentative : we begin 
by making any supposition, even a false one, to see what 
consequences will follow from it ; and by observing how 
these differ from the real phenomena we learn what correc- 
tions to make in our assumption. The simplest supposition 
which accords with any of the most obvious facts, is the 
best to begin with, because its consequences are the most 
easily traced. This rude hypothesis is then rudely cor- 
rected, and the operation repeated, until the deductive re- 
sults are at last made to tally with the phenomena. Let 
any one watch the manner in which he himself unravels any 
complicated mass of evidence ; let him observe how, for in- 
stance, he elicits the true history of any occurrence from 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 203 

the involved statements of one or of many witnesses. He 
will find that he does not take all the items of evidence into 
his mind at once, and attempt to weave them together; 
the human faculties are not equal to such an undertaking ; 
he extemporizes, from a few of the particulars, a first rude 
theory of the mode in which the facts took place, and then 
looks at the other statements, one by one, to try whethei 
they can be reconciled with the provisional theory, or what 
corrections or additions it requires to make it square w^th 
them. In this way, which, as M. Comte remarks, has some 
resemblance to the methods of approximation of mathema 
ticians, we arrive by means of hypothesis at conclusions not 
hypothetical," 

§ y, — Different Forms of Reasoning. 

It remains to treat briefly of the different forms of reasoa 
ing, as founded in the laws of thought. 

Sow far these Forms fall within the Province of Psy- 
chology, — As there are different kinds or modes of reason- 
ing, according to the difference of the subject-matter or 
material about which our reasoning is employed, so there 
are certain general forms into which aU reasoning may be 
cast, and which, according to the laws of thought, it natu- 
rally assumes. To treat specifically of these forms, their 
nature, use, and value, is the business oi logic; but, in so far 
as they depend upon the laws of thought, and are merely 
modes of mental activity as exercised in reasoning, they are 
to be considered, in connection with other phenomena of 
the mind, by the psychologist. Briefly to describe these 
forms, and then to consider their value, is all that I now 
propose. I begin with the proposition, as the starting^ 
point in every process of /'masoning. 

I. Analysis op the PEOPOsmoN. 
What constitutes a Proposition, — All reasoning deab 



204 THE ANALinC PROCESS. 

with propositions, which are judgments expressed. Every 
proposition involved two distinct conceptions, and expresses 
the relation between them ; affirms the agreement or disa- 
greement of the one with the other. As when I say, Snow 
is white, the conception of snow is before my mind, and also 
of whiteness ; I perceive that the latter element enters into 
my notion of snow, and constitutes one of the qualities of 
the substance so called ; I affirm the relation of the two, 
accordingly, and this gives the proposition enunciated. 
Every proposition then consists of these several parts, a word 
or words expressing some conception, a word or words ex- 
pressing some other conception, a word or words expressing 
the relation of the two. The words which designate these 
two conceptions are called the terms of the proposition, and, 
according to the above analysis, there are, in every proposi- 
tion, always two terms. That term or conception of which 
something is affirmed, is called the subject^ that which is 
affirmed of the same, the predicate^ and the word which ex- 
presses the relation of the two, the copula. In the above 
proposition, snow is the subject, white, the predicate, and is, 
the copula. 

Quality and Quantity, — Propositions are distinguished as 
to quality and quantity. The former has reference to the 
affirmative or negative character of the proposition, the lat- 
ter to its comprehensiveness. Every proposition is either 
affirmative or negative, which is called its quality. As to 
quantity, every proposition is either universal^ affirming 
something of the whole of the subject — as. All men are 
mortal ; or else particular^ affirming something of only a part 
of the subject — as. Some tyrants are miserable. 

Four kinds of categorical Propositions. — We have, then, 
four kinds of categorical propositions, viz., universal affirma- 
tive, universal negative, particular affirmative, particular 
negative. That is, with the same subject and predicate, it 
is always possible to state four distinct propositions; as, 
'ivery A is B, no A is B, son^e A b 3, some A is not R 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 205 

For the sake of convenience, logicians designate these dif- 
ferent kinds of propositions severally by the letters A, E, T, O. 
Propositions that thus differ in quantity and quality are said 
to be opposed to each other. Of these, the two universals, 
A and E, are called contraries ; the two particulars, I and 
O, sub-contraries ; the universal affirmative, and the particu* 
lar affirmative, A and I, also the universal negative and the 
particular negative, E and O, are respectively subalterns; 
while the universal affirmative and the particular negative, 
A and O, as also the universal negative and particular 
affirmative, E and I, are contradictories. 

Rules of Opposition, — - The following rules will be found 
universally applicable to propositions as opposed to each 
other. If the universal is true, so is the particular. If the 
particular is false, so is the universal. Contraries are never 
both true, but may be both false. Sub -contraries are never 
both false, but may be both true. Contradictories are never 
both true, or both false, but always one is true, the other 
false. The truth of these maxims will be evident on apply- 
ing them to any proposition and its opposites, as for example, 
to the affirmation. Every man is mortal. 

Categorical and hypothetical Propositions, — Proposi- 
tions may be further distinguished as categorical or hypo- 
thetical ; the one asserting or denying directly, as, e, g,^ The 
earth is round ; the other conditionally, — as. If the earth is 
round, it is not oblong. 

Pure^ and Modal, — The proposition, moreover, maybe 
either pure or modal, the former asserting or denying with- 
out qualification, — as, Man is Uable to err ; the latter qualify- 
ing the statement, — as, Man is extremely or unquestionably 
liable to err. 

II. A:n'altsis of the Syllogism. 

Proposition the IdnJc^ Syllogism the Chain, — All rea- 
soning admits of being reduced to the form of a syllogism. 
Having discussed the proposition which forms the material or 



206 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

groundwork of every connected chain of argument, we art; 
prepared now to examine the syllogism, or chain itself, into 
which the several propositions, as so many links, are wrought. 

Syllogism defined, — A syllogism is an argument so ex- 
pressed that the conclusiveness of it is manifest from the 
mere form of expression. When, for example, I affirm that 
all A is B, that all B is C, and that, consequently, all A ia 
C, it is impossible that any one who is able to reason at all, 
and who comprehends the force of these several propositions 
taken singly, should fail to perceive that the conclusion fol- 
lows inevitably from the premises. That which is affirmed, 
may or may not be true^ but it is conclusive. If the 
premises are true, so is the conclusion ; but whether they 
are true or not, the argument, as such, is conclusive ; nay, 
even if they are false, the conclusion may possibly be true. 
For example. Every tyrant is a good man ; Washington 
was a tyrant ; therefore, Washington was a good man. 
Both the premises are false, but the argument, as regards 
the form, is valid, and the conclusion is not only correctly 
drawn, but is, moreover, a true proposition. In a word, the 
syllogism concerns itself not at all with the truth or falsity 
of the thing stated, but only with the form of stating, and 
that form must be such, that the premises being conceded, 
the conclusion shall be obvious and inevitable. All valid 
reasoning admits of such statement. 

Composition of a Syllogism,. — Every syllogism contams 
three propositions, of which two state the grounds or rea- 
sons, and are called the premises, the other states the infer 
ence from those positions, and is called the conclusion. 
These three propositions contain three, and only three, dis- 
tinct terms, of which one is common to both premises, and 
is called the m^iddle term ; the others are the extremes, one 
of which is the subject of the conclusion, and is called the 
minor term ; the other the predicate of the conclusion, and 
is called the m^ajor term, from the fact that it denotes the 
Alass to which the subject or minor term belongs. In the sy^ 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 207 

logism, — Every man is mortal ; Socrates is a man ; therefore, 
Socrates is mortal, — the three terms are, man, mortal, and 
Socrates: of these, Socrates, or the subject of the conclusion, 
is the minor ; mortal, or the predicate of the conclusion, \a 
the major ; and man, with which both the others are com- 
pared, is the middle term. 

Major and minor Premiss, — The premiss which oontains 
the m,ajor term, and compares it with the middle, is called 
the major premiss / that which, in like manner, compares the 
minor term with the middle, is called the minor premiss. 
In the syllogism already given, ' Every man is mortal' is the 
major premiss ; ' Socrates is a man' is the minor premiss. 

The Order variable, — The order of the terms in the re- 
ipective propositions, and even the order of the propositions 
themselves, is not invariable, but depends on circumstances, 
(n the above proposition, it is immaterial whether I say, 
Every man is mortal, or, Mortal is every man ; it is imma- 
terial whether I state first the major or the minor premiss ; 
nay, it is allowable even to state the conclusion first, and 
then the grounds and reasons for the same. 

Til. Laws of Syllogism. 

The following rules or maxims will be found applicable to 
all cases, and may be regarded as laws of the syllogism. 

Middle Term unequivocal, — The middle term must not b^ 
equivocal. This rule is violated in the following syllogism. 
Nothing is heavier than lead ; feathers are heavier than 
nothing; therefore, feathers are heavier than lead. The 
middle term, nothing, is here used in diflferent senses in 
the two premises. 

Middle Term to he distributed, — Essentially the same 
thing occurs when the middle term is not, at least once, in 
the premises, used in its most complete and comprehensive 
sense, or, as the logicians express it, distributed. As, for 
example, when I say. White is a color, the term color is not 
here distributed, for it properly includes many things be- 



208 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 

Hi 

sides white. If now I introduce into another proposition the 
same term in a similar manner* as Black is a color, I evi- 
dently include under the term, as now used, some part Jf the 
class of things denoted by the general word color, which was 
not included under the same term as first used. The color 
which is affirmed to agree with black, is not the same color 
which is affirmed to agree with white. The term, in fact, 
ienotes one thing in the one proposition, and another in the 
other. A syllogism thus constructed, is invalid. Hence the 
rule, that the middle term m^ust he distributed^ or taken in 
its completeness, to include the whole class which it properly 
denotes, at least once in the premises. This is done either 
by making it the subject of an affirmative^ or the predicate 
of a negative proposition ; as, All men are mortal, or, No 
vice is useful. Here the term man in the one case, and the 
term useful in the other, are each distributed or taken in 
their completeness. There is no individual to whom the 
term man can properly be applied, who is not included in 
the expression, all men, nor is there any useful thing which 
is not here denied of vice. 

What distributed in the Conclusion, - — On the same 
principle, no term m,ust be distributed in the conclusion 
which was not distributed in one of the premises. This 
rule is violated in the following syllogism. All birds are 
bipeds; no man is a bird; therefore, no man is a biped. 
Here the term biped, in the major premiss, is not taken 
m its completeness, since many creature^ besides birdft 
are bipeds. Birds are only one sort of bipeds. In the 
conclusion, however, the term biped, being the predicate 
of a negative proposition, is distributed, the whole clas^ 
of bipeds is spoken of, and man is excluded from ih^ 
whole class. The syllogism is, of course, invalid. 

Law of negative Premiss, — It is further a law of the 
cyllogism, that from negative premises nothing can be in 
f erred. Also, that if one premiss is negative^ the conclusion 
iTiB be negative,. 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 209 

Law of partimlar Premiss, — From two particular pre- 
mises nothing follows^ hv/ if one premiss is particular^ tJie 
conclusion will be so. 

These rules are too obv^ »us, and too easily verified, to re* 
quire illustration. 

rV. Different Kinds of Syllogism. 

Syllogisms differ, — We have mentioned as yet only those 
properties of the syllofrrm which universally belong to it. 
There are differences}, however, which require to be noticed, 
and which constitut-q h distinction of some importance, pre* 
sen ting, in fact, two distinct kinds of syllogism. 

Two Mode^ of procedure, — There are manifestly two 
entirely distinct modes of procedure in reasoning. We may 
infer from the whole to the parts, or from the parts to the 
whole. The former is <called deductive, the latter inductive^ 
reasoning. The one \s> precisely the reverse of the other in 
method of procedure. Each is a perfectly valid method of 
reasoning, and each is, in itself, a distinct and valid kind of 
syllogism. Each requires the other. The deductive is 
wholly dependent on the inductive for its major premiss, 
which is only the conclusion of a previous induction, while, 
on the other hand, the induction is valuable chiefly as pre- 
paring the way for subsequent deduction. Each has equal 
claims with the other to be regarded as a distinct and inde- 
pendent form of syllogism. They have not, however, been 
so treated by logicians, but, on the contrary, the inductive 
method has been regarded, almost universally, as a mere 
appendage of the deductive, an imperfect form of one or 
another of the several figures of the syllogism deductive. 
Of this we shall have occasion to speak more fully in the 
nistorical sketch. 

The two Modes compared, — The precise relation of the 
two modes will best appear by the comparison of the follow 
ing syllogisms. The inductive syllogism runs thus: a, y 
z^ are A ; cc, y^ z^ constitute B ; therefore, B is A. 



210 THE ANALYTIC PiwOCESS. 

The deductive runs thus : B is A ; a;, y, s, constitute B 
therefore, x^ y, z^ are A. 

The latter, it will be seen at a glance, is the precise coun- 
terpart of the other, beginning where the former ends, and 
exactly reversing the several steps in their order. 

The Law of each. — The general law or rule which 
governs the former, is, What belongs (or does not belong) 
to all the constituent parts, belongs (or does not belong) to 
the constituted whole. The law of the latter is, What be- 
longs (or not) to the containing whole, belongs (or not) to 
all the contained parts. 

Application of the inductive Method, — Applying the 
inductive method to a particular case, we reason thus : Mag- 
nets aj, y, 2, etc., including so many as I have observed, 
attract iron. But it is fair to presume that what I have 
^observed as true of cc, y, ^, is equally true of 6, f g^ and all 
other magnets ; in other words, aj, y, ^, do represent, and 
may fairly be taken as constituting the whole class of 
magnets ; consequently, I conclude that all magnets attract 
iron. Thus stated, the truth which was at first observed 
and affirmed only of particular instances, becomes a general 
proposition, and may, in turn, become the premiss of a 
process of deduction. Thus, from the general proposition, 
obtained as now explained by the inductive mode, that all 
horned animals ruminate, I may proceed, by the deductive 
mode, to infer that this is true of deer or goats, or any par- 
ticular species or individual whose habits I have not as yet 
observed. 

V. Different Forms of Syllogism. 

The Form of Statement not invariable, — As there are 
different kinds of syllogism, so also there are difierent/brm^ 
in which any kind of syllogism may be stated. These forma 
are not essential, pertaining to the nature of the syllogism 
Itself, but accidental, pertaining merely to the order of 
aamouncing the several propositions. It has already been 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 211 

remarked, in speaking of the general structure of the syllo 
gism, that the order of propositions is not essential. Either 
premiss may precede, either follow. Nay, we may state Jirst 
the conclusion^ and then the reasons^ or grounds. This latter 
method, as Hamilton has shown in his New Analytic of Logi- 
cal forms^ is perfectly valid, though usually neglected by writ- 
ers on logic. It is not only valid, but the more natural of the 
two methods. When asked if Socrates is mortal, it is more 
natural to say. He is mortal, for he is a man, and all men are 
mortal, than to say. All men are mortal, he is a man, and 
therefore, he is mortal. In fact, most of our reasoning takes 
the first of these forms. The two are designated by Hamil- 
ton, respectively, as the analytic and synthetic syllogism. 

Order ef Premises may vary, — As to the order of the 
premises, which shall precede the other, this, too, is quite 
unessential and accidental. The earlier method, practised 
by Greek, Arabian, Jewish and Latin schools, was to state 
first the minor premiss, precisely the reverse of our modern 
custom. 

Order of Terms not essential. — The order of the terms^ 
m the several propositions, is also accidental rather than 
essential. There are several possible and allowable arrange- 
ments of these terms with reference to the order of pre- 
cedence and succession, giving rise to what are cd^edifigwes 
of the syllogism. These arrangements and figures have 
usually been reckoned as four ; three only are admitted by 
Hamilton, the fourth being abolished. The first figure occurs 
when the middle term is the subject of one premiss and the 
predicate of the other. The second figure gives the middle 
term the place of predicate in both premises. The third 
makes it the subject of both. 

A further Variation. — There is still another form of 
statement, in which the terms compared are not, as above, 
severally subject and predicate, but, in the same proposition, 
are both subject, or both predicate, as when we say, A and 
B are equal \ B and C are equal \ therefore, A and C ai^e 



212 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

equal. This is a valid synthetic syllogism, though not recog- 
nized by logicians previously to the New Analytic of Ham 
ilton. It is termed by him the unfigured syllogism. 

Hypothetical reasoning not syllogistic, — It has been cus- 
tomary to treat of hypothetical reasoning, in its two forms 
of conditional and disjunctive, as forms or kinds of syllogism. 
As when we say, if A is B, C is D ; but A is B, therefore C 
is D; or, disjunctively, either A is B, or C is D; but A 
b not B, therefore C is D. These, however, are not prop 
erly syllogisms. The inference is not mediate, through 
comparison with a common or middle term, but im^mediate^ 
whereas the syllogism is, in all its forms, a process of mediate 
inference. 

Summary of Distinctions. — To sum up the distinctions 
now pointed out. All inference is either immediate, as in 
the case of hypothetical reasoning, whether conjunctive or 
disjunctive, or else mediate, as in the syllogism. The latter 
may be inductive or deductive ; and, as to form, analytic or 
synthetic, figured or unfigured. 

VI. Laws of Thought o^ which the Syllogism 

DEPENDS. 

Statement, — - There are certain universal law^s of thought 
on which all reasoning, and, of course, all syllogisms, depend. 
These laws, according to Hamilton, are the principles of 
identity^ of contradiction^ and of excluded middle / from 
which primary laws results a fourth, that of reason and con- 
sequent. 

Law of Identity^ what. — The principle of identity 
compels us to recognize the equivalence of a whole and its 
geveral parts taken together, as applied to any conception 
and its distinctive characters. As, for example, the same- 
ness or equivalence of the notion man with the aggregate 
of qualities or characters that constitute that notion. 

Law of Contradiction^ what, — The law of contradiction 
IS the principle that what is contradictory is unthinkable ; 



T^E ANALYTIC PROCiiSS 213 

as, for example, that A has, and yet has not, a given qual- 
ity, B. 

Law of excluded Middle, — The principle of excluded 
middle is this, that of two contradictory notions, we must 
think one or the other to be trae ; as^ that A either has or 
has not the quality B. 

Law of Reason and Consequent, — From these primary 
irinciples results the law of reason and consequent. All 
logical inference is based on that law of our nature, that one 
notion shall always depend on another. This inference is of 
two kinds, from the whole to the part», or from the parts to 
the whole, respectively called deductive and inductive, as 
already explained. 

Certain Points not included in the preceding Synopsis, — 
I have presented, as was proposed, in brief outline, a 
synopsis of the forms of reasoning. For a full treatment of 
these forms, and the laws which govern them, the treatises on 
logic must be consulted. 

Some things usually considered essential to logical forms, 
as the modality of propositions and syllogisms, and tlie conr 
version of the other figures of the syllogism into the first, 
I have not included in the above outline, for the reason that 
the former does not properly fall within the province of 
logic, which has to do only with the form and not with the 
m^atter of a proposition or an argument, while, as to the 
latter, it is only an accidental, and not an essential circum- 
stance, what may be the figure of a syllogism, and it is, 
therefore, of no importance to reduce the second and third 
figures to the first. 

VII. Use and Yalue of the Syllogism.. 

Having considered the various forms which the syllogisTa 
may assume, as also the laws or canons which govern it, 
we proceed to inquire, finally, as to it use and value ir 
reasoning. 

AU mediate reasoning syllogistic, — It must be cod 



214 THE ANALYTIC PR0CES18. 

ceded. I think, that all mediate reasoning, all inference, 
which is not immediate and direct, but '^hich, in order to 
reach its conclusion, compares one thing with another, is es- 
sentially syllogistic. The greater part of our reasoning pro- 
cesses are of this sort. When fully and explicitly stated, 
Buch reasoning resolves itself into some form of syllogism. 
It is not, as sometimes stated, a mode of reasoning, but iht 
mode which all reasoning, except such as is direct and im- 
mediate, tends to assume. Not always, indeed, is this 
reasoning fully drawn out and explicitly stated, but all 
valid reasoning admits of being thus stated ; nay, it is not, 
as to form at least, complete until it is so expressed. 

Kot always syllogistically expressed, — In ordinary con- 
versation, and even in public address, we omit many inter- 
mediate steps in the trains and processes of our arguments, 
for the reason that their statement is not essential to our 
being understood, the hearer's mind supplying, for itself, the 
connecting links as we proceed ; just as in speaking or writ- 
ing, we make many abbreviations, drop out some letters and 
syllables here and there, in our hasty utterance, and yet all 
such short-hand processes imply and are based upon the full 
form ; and it would be as correct and as reasonable to say 
that the fully written or fully spoken word is merely a mode 
of speaking and writing, which, when the grammarian and 
rhetorician come into contact with common people, they lay 
aside for the ordinary forms of speech, as to say that syllo- 
gism is merely a mode of reasoning, which the logician lays 
aside when he comes out of his study, and reasons with 
other men. 

Chief Value of the Syllogism. — The chief use of the 
syllogism, I apprehend, however, to be, not in presenting % 
train of argument for the purpose of convincing and per- 
suading others ; for the laws of thought do not require us in 
such a case to state every thing that is even essential to the 
argument, but only so much as shall clearly indicate our 
meaning, and enable the hearer or reader to follow us ; but 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 216 

rather in testing the soundness or detecting the nnsonndnesft 
of an argument, whether our own, or that of an opponent. 
For this purpose, an acquaintance with the forms and lawa 
of syllogism may be of great service to the writer and to 
the orator. 

Objection to the Syllogism, — But it is objected to th« 
syllogism that it is of no value in the discovery and estab 
ishment of truth, inasmuch as, by the very laws of the syllo 
gism, there can be nothing more in the conclusion than waf 
assumed in the premises. There is, and can be, in this way 
no progress from the known to the unknown. The very 
construction of the syllogism, it is said, involves a petitio 
principii. When I say. All men are mortal ; Socrates is a 
man ; therefore, Socrates is mortal ; the major premiss, it is 
said, affirms the very thing to be proved ; that Socrates is 
mortal is virtually affirmed in the proposition that all men 
are so. Either, then, the syllogism proves nothing which was 
not known before, or else the general proposition, with which 
it sets out, is unwarranted, as asserting more than we know 
to be true, and, in that case, the conclusion is equally unre- 
Uable ; in either case nothing is gained by the process ; the 
syllogism is worthless. 

J^ies equally against all reasoning, — This objection, if 
valid against the syllogism, is valid against and overthrows 
not the syllogism merely, but all reasoning of whatevei 
kind, and in whatever form. It is an objection which really 
applies, not to the form which an argument may happen to 
assume, but to the essential nature of reasoning itself. As 
was shown in discussing the nature of the reasoning process^ 
all reasoning is, in its nature, essentially analytic. It is the 
evolution of a truth that lies involved in some already ad» 
mitted truth. It simply develops, draws out, what was 
therein contained. Its starting-point must always be some 
admitted position, its conclusions must always be some m 
evitable necessary consequence of that admission. Tbo 
mortality of Socrates is, indeed, involved and contained in 



216 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS, 

the general proposition which affirms the mortahty of all 
men, and so, also, is every inferred truth contained m that 
from which it is inferred. 

Conclusion not affirmed in the Premiss, — But while 
contained^ it is not affirmed^ in the premiss. To say that all 
meu are mortal, is not to say that Socrates is so, but only 
to say what implies that. The conclusion which draws out 
and affirms what was involved, but not affirmed, in the pre- 
miss, is an advance in the order of thought, a step of pro- 
gress, and not merely an idle repetition, and the syllogism, 
as a whole, moves the mind onward from the starting-point 
to a position not otherwise explicitly and positively reached. 
It is a movement onward, and not merely a rotation of the 
wheel about its own axis. 

The Form accidental, — In so far as the objection of 
petitio principii relates, not to the nature of reasoning, but 
only to its form^ this is entirely a matter of accident, and 
does not pertain to the syllogism as such. As was shown in 
treating of the different forms of syllogism, the order of the 
propositions is not essential. We may, if we like, state the 
conclusion first, and then the reasons, as. All A is C, for all 
A is B, and all B is C ; or we may state the same thing in a 
different form, as, A and B are equal ; B and C are equal ; 
therefore, A and C are equal. Both are syllogisms, the for- 
mer analytic^ the latter unfigured^ but to neither does the 
objection o^ petitio principii apply so far as regards the mere 
form of statement. IsTor does it apply to that form of syllo- 
gism in which the major premiss is a singular proposition, 
as, e. ^., Caesar was fortunate ; Caesar was a tyrant ; there- 
fore, a tyrant may be fortunate. Here the subject of the 
conclusion is not formally contained in that of the major 
premiss, as Socrates is contained in the expression, all men, 
A part of the whole. 

Objection inapplicable to the inductive Syllogism. — Nor 
does the objection apply again to the inductive syllogism, in 
which the conclusion is more comprehensive than the pre 



THE ANALYTIC PilOCESS. 2J7 

miss. The objection applies, in fact, only to the deductive 
syllogism, and to that only in its synthetic form, and to trial 
only as figured, and as presenting, in its major premiss, otxier 
than a singular proposition. 

Major Premiss^ whence derived, — But whence, it may 
still be asked, comes the general proposition which evei y 
deductive syllogism contains, whether analytic or synthetir,. 
the proposition e, ^., that all men are mortal ? Whethc^r 
this be stated before or after the conclusion is a mere mav 
ter of form ; but what is our authority for stating such a 
proposition at all ? How do we know that which is here 
affirmed ? 

1 reply, it is a truth reached by previous induction. 
Every deduction implies previous induction. I observe the 
mortality of individuals, x^ y, z, I find no exceptions. My 
observation extends to a great number of cases, insomuch 
that I am authorized to take those cases as fairly represent 
mg the whole class to which they belong. I conclude 
therefore, that what I have observed of the many is true of 
the whole. So comes the general proposition. All men are 
mortal. 

Authority for this JBelief. — But what reason have I to 
believe that what is true of the many is true of the whole 
and how do I know this ? I reply, I do not know it by ob- 
servation, nor by demonstration ; my belief of it rests upon, 
and resolves itself into, that general law or constitution of 
*the mind according to which I am led to expect, under like 
circumstances, like results, in other words, that nature acts 
uniformly. This is my warrant, and my only warrant, for 
the inference, that what I have observed in many cases is 
true in others that I have not observed. 

A Difficulty suggested. — But in what manner, now, shall 
this mere belief of mine, for it is nothing more, come to taK:8 
its place as a general proposition, as positive categorical affir- 
matioii in the syllogism whose major premiss reads. All men 
Rr(5 mortal ? 



218 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS- 

A 'aw of the mind may be a sufficient explanation of id^ 
belief; but the science of syllogisms cannot take cognizance 
of laws of the mind, as such, and has nothing to do with 
beliefs, but is concerned only with the forms in which an 
argument shall be presented. Those forms must be conclu- 
sive. How shall I convert, then, my conjecture, my plausible 
belief, in the present case, mto that general positive affirma- 
tion which alone will answer the demands of the syllogism ? 

The Process explained, — The process is this : The precise 
result of my observation stands thus— a;, v, z^ are mortal. 
But I know that x^ y, z^ are so numerous as fairly to repre- 
sent the class to which thcT belons:. On the strength of 
this position, the inductive syllogism takes it& stand, and 
overlooking the fact that there are some cases which have 
not fallen under my observation^ positivek/ q^rm'i wliat I 
only believe and presume to be true, and the argument then 
reads, cc, y, z, are mortal But ic, v, z^ are ail men, there- 
fore, all men are mortal. 

The general proposition thus reached by induction be- 
comes, in turn, the major premiss of the deductive sylio£:ism, 
which concludes, from the mortality of all men. that of 
Socrates in particular. 

Position of Mill, — An able and ingenious writer. Mr, 
Mill, in his treatise on logic, takes the ground that we have 
no need to embody the result of our observations in the 
form of a general proposition, from which again to descend 
to the particular conclusion, but that, dispensing wHh the 
general proposition altogether, and with the syllogism of 
every kind and form, we may, and virtually do, reason 
t -rectly from one particular instance to another, as, e. g.^ a?, 
y^ 3, are mortal; therefore,/*, g^ A, are so. "If from our ex- 
peilence of John, Thomas, etc., who were once living, but 
ai now dead, we are entitled to conclude that all human 
boini^g are mortal, we might surely, without any logica] in 
consequence, have concluded at once, from those instanr«*s 
Uial llio Duke of Wellington is mortal. The mortality' \A 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 219 

John, Thomas, and company, is, after all, the whole evidence 
fve have of the mortality of the Duke of Wellington. Not 
one iota is added to the proof by interpolating a general 
proposition." Our earliest inferences, he contends, are pre- 
cisely of this sort. The child burning his fingers, reasons 
thus : " That fire burnt me, therefore this will." He does 
not generalize, " All fire burns ; this is fire ; therefore, this 
will burn." The only use of a general proposition, MiU 
contends, is simply to furnish collateral security for the cor 
rectness of our inference. 

Remarks upon this View, — This view sweeps away at 
once, and forever, all mediate reasoning, and shuts us up to 
the narrow limits of such inference alone as proceeds from 
a given instance directly to a conclusion therefrom. No 
doubt we do sometimes reason thus. But it is a reasoning, 
the conclusiveness of which is not, and cannot be made, ap- 
parent by any form of statement. If called in question, we 
can only say, I think so, or, I believe so. The mortality of 
John does not prove the mortality of Thomas. It may not 
even render it probable ; it is only when I have observed 
such and so many cases as to leave no reasonable doubt that 
the property in question is a law of the class as suc\ and 
not a mere accident of the individual^ that I am really war- 
ranted in the belief that any individual, not as yet observed, 
will come under the same law, because belonging to the 
game class. To reason in this way is to generalize ; what- 
ever process stops short of this, stops so far short of any 
%nd all conclusive evidence of the truth of what it affirms. 

VIII. Historical Sketch of the SciE:NrcE of Logic. 

Indian Logic earlier than that of Aristotle, — It is of 
the (aieek logic, that of Aristotle, that we usually speak 
when we hav^e occasion to refer to this science. It is usu 
ally attributed to Aristotle, indeed, as his peculiar glory, 
chat he should at once have originated, and brought to per- 
fection, a science which, for more than two thousand years, 



220 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS 

has recei\ ed few alterations, found few minds capable of 
suggesting improvements. Recent labors of Orientalists 
have, however, brought to light the fact that in India, kng 
before the palmy days of Grecian philosophy, logic waA 
pursued with vigor as a study and science. The Nyaya of 
Gotama holds, in the Indian systems of philosophy, much the 
same place that the Organon of Aristotle holds with us. 
The two, however, are quite independent of each other. 
Aristotle was no disciple of Gotama. 

Aristotle'^s Logic not perfect. — Nor, on the other hand, 
was the logic of Aristotle by any means perfect, as it is often 
represented. Its imperfections are many, and have been, 
for the most part, faithfully copied by his disciples. 

Aristotle the first Greek Logician, — Previous to Aris- 
totle there had been nothing worthy the name of science in 
this department of philosojphy. The Sophists had made some 
attempts at logic, but of no great value. Plato had not de- 
voteH much attention to it. Aristotle himself says, in the 
close of his Organon, that he had worked without models or 
predecessors to guide him. 

Subsequent Writers, — The work of Aristotle is in six 
parts, the first four treating of logic pure, the remaining 
two of its application. The school of Aristotle carried the 
cultivation and study of logic to a high degree. Theophras- 
tus and Eudemus labored assiduously as commentators ott 
tlieir master, but made no change in the essential principles 
of the system. The Stoics, however, gave logic more atten* 
tion and honor, more time and care, than did any other of 
the rival schools of philosophy. They sought to enlarge its 
boundaries and make it an instrument for the discovery of 
truth. It held the first place in their system, ethics and 
physics ranking after it. 

St. Hilaire is wrong in sapng that with Epicurus logio 
was of little consideration, that sensation was the source 
wid criterion of tlvought with that school. The Epicurean 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 221 

logic was a peculiar system, differing from the Aristotelian, 
and very little known in the subsequent centuries. 

In Alexandria the logic of Aristotle was in great honor, 
and had numerous commentators in the first centuries of the 
Christian era. 

Introduced into Rome, — For a time the original works oi 
Aristotle were lost. They lay buried in an obscure retreat 
whither they had been carried for safe pr •jservation, and no 
one knew what they were. Sylla, capturing the city, brought 
them to Rome, where they were discovered to be the works of 
the great master,* and Cicero gives them, with some labor and 
learning, to the public. But the Roman mind never mast- 
ered the logic of Aristotle. In all Roman philosophy, says 
St. Hilaire, there is scarcely a logician worthy of the name. 

For several centuries, if not in Rome, yet in Alexandria 
and Athens, in Greece and in Egypt, the logic of Aristotle 
continued to be assiduously cultivated. 

Logic in the Middle Ages, — It was in the middle ages, 
however, that logic received its chief cultivation and its 
liighest honors. Aristotle was for some six centuries almost 
the only teacher of the human mind, and the Organon was 
the foundation of his knowledge. Nor during the irrup- 
tion of the northern hordes, and the revolutions of society, 
and empire, and human manners, which followed, did the 
philosophy and logic of Aristotle pass out of sight or out of 
mind. It seemed impossible for any revolution of empire 
or of time to shake its foundations or break its sceptre over 
the human mind. In the seventh century, Isidore of 
Seville, and Bede the Venerable, gave it their labors and 
renown. In the eighth, Alcuin introduced it into the court 
of Charlemagne. In the twelfth, Abelard, and the contro 
versy between the Realists and Nominalists, gave this science 
•till more importance. 

Logic in the Arabian Schools. — Meanwhile, the Mo- 
hammedans had been in advance of the Christians m the 
study of this science. The Arabs had inherited the learning 



222 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 

of antiquity, and had carried the cultivation of the peripaT- 
tetic philosophy to a high degree of perfection more than % 
century before it had received the homage of the West, 
From Arabia it passed, with the march of conquest, into 
Spain, and some of the ablest commentators Europe has pro- 
duced, on the works of Aristotle, have been the Moors of 
Spain. 

Continuance of Aristotle^ s JDominiono — The Crusadef 
tended only to enlarge the sphere of this influence. Such 
men as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, became, in 
the thirteenth century, expounders of Aristotle. Not till the 
sixteenth century did this long dominion over the human 
mind show symptoms of decadence. 

nie Reformers, — Luther, among the Protestant reform- 
ers, sought to banish logic from the schools ; but it was re- 
tained, and in the Protestant universities was still professed* 

Attacks upon Aristotle. — It now became the fashion, 
however, in certain quarters, especially among the mystics 
in the Catholic communion, to decry Aristotle, and each 
original genius took this way to show his independence. 
Ramus is noted among these. Bacon followed in this track, 
and did little more than repeat the invectives of his prede- 
cessors. He attempted to set aside the syllogism, and put 
in its place induction. 

Induction, however, in some form, is as old as the syllo- 
gism. From Plato and Aristotle downward, a thousand 
philosophers had availed themselves of this method of rea 
oning, and had also stated and defended it. 

The Moderns, — From Bacon and Descartes till our day 
logic has been in process of decadence. Locke condemns it 
Reid and the Scotch school ridicule its pretensions. Kant 
and Hegel, on the other hand, give it a due place in theii 
systems — the latter especially ; while in France, it has ad- 
mirers in St. Hilaire, Cousin, and others of like genius ; and 
m Edinburgh, the great Hamilton devoted to it the powers 
of his unrivaMed inter ect. 



THK ANALYTIC PROCESS. 223 

Logic of Hamilton, — As no writer, since the days of 
Aristotle, has done more to complete and perfect the science 
of reasoning, than Sir William Hamilton, it seems due that 
even so brief a sketch of the history of logic as tb ^ present, 
should indicate, at least, the more important changes which 
his system introduces. Whatever may be thought of some 
of his views and proposed reforms in this ancient science 
and sanctuary of past learning, it is not too much to say, that 
no writer on logic can henceforth present a claim to be con- 
sidered, who has not, at least, thoroughly mastered and 
carefully weighed these views and proposed changes, even 
if he do not adopt them. They are, moreover, for the most 
part, changes so obviously demanded in order to the com- 
pleteness of the science, and so thorough-going withal, that 
they are destined, it would seem, to be sooner or later 
adopted, and if adopted, to work a radical change in the 
whole structure of this ancient and time-honored science. 

I shall attempt nothing more, in this connection, than, in 
the briefest manner, to enumerate some of the more impor- 
tant of these improvements. 

Assigns Induction its true Place. — Hamilton is the first, 
BO far as I know, to elevate to its true place the inductive 
method of reasoning, making it coordinate with the deduc- 
tive, and assigning its true character and value as a form of 
syllogism. 

Recognizes the analytic Syllogism, — He is the first to 
bring to notice the claims of the analytic syllogism to a dis- 
tinctive place and recognition in logic ; a form of reasoning, 
which, however natural and necessary, and in use almost 
iiniversal, had been strangely overlooked by logicians from 
Aristotle down. 

Rejects Modality, — He strenuously and consistently re- 
jects the modality of the proposition and the syllogism, oi» 
the ground that logic is not concerned with the character of 
the matter, whether it be true or false, necessary or ?ontin 
gent, but only with the form of statement, and consequently, 



224 THE ANALYTIC PROCESS- 

all distinctions founded on the truth or falsity, the necessity 
or ",outingence of the matter, are utterly irrelevant to the 
science — a principle admitted by others, but not previously 
carried out to- its true results. 

Doctrine of Figure, — He shows that the figure of the 
syllogism is a matter accidental, rather than essential, that it 
may be even entirely unfigured ; abolishes the fourth figure 
as superfluous ; and sets aside, as quite useless and unneces- 
sary, the old laborious processes of reducing and connecting 
the several figures to the first. 

Rejects hypothetical Syllogism, — Rethrows out of the 
syllogism entirely, the so-called hypothetical forms, both 
conjunctive and disjunctive, as reducible to immediate in- 
ference, and not, therefore, to be included under syllogistic 
reasoning, which is always mediate. 

The single Canon, — He reduces ^he several laws and 
canons of the figured syllogism to a single comprehensive 
canon. 

Quantification of the Predicate, — But the most import- 
ant discovery made by Hamilton in this science, is the quan- 
tification of the predicate. The predicate is always a given 
quantity in relation to the subject, and that quantity should 
be stated. This, logicians have always overlooked, quanti- 
fying only the subject, as. All men, Some men, etc., but 
never the predicate. Fully quantified, the proposition reads, 
All man is some animal, no animal, etc., ^. 6., some sort or 
species of animal. This doubles the number of possibl 
propositions, giving eight in place of four, and gives a cor 
responding increase in the number of words. These eight 
propositions are shown to be, not only possible, but admiss- 
ible and valid. They are thus enumerated and named : 

AFFIRMATIVE. NEGATIVE. 

L Toto-toial : All A is all B. Any A is not any B. 

n. Toio-partial : All A is some B. Any A is not some B. 

111. Parti-total : Some A is all B. 8ome A is not any B. 

lY.' Pa^''i-partial : Some A is some B. Some A is not some B^ 



THE ANALYTIC PROCESS. 225 

Reference. — For a more full and exact account of Hamil- 
ton's system, the reader is referred to the article on logic in 
the volume of Discussions on Philosophy and Literaturt^ 
by Sir W. Hamilton ; also, to " An Essay on the New 
Analytic of Logical Forms^'^ by Thomas Spencer Baynes, 
L. L. B. On the history of logic in general, see Dictionnaire 
des Sciences Philosophiques — Article Logique^ by Barthel- 
eme St. Hilaire, Professor of Philosophy to the College of 
France, member of the Institute, etc., etc. ; also, Blakey's 
History of Logic. The Memoir of St, Hilaire, on the logic 
of Aristotle, is one of the best works of modern times on 
the eubiect of which it treats. 



INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES 



PART FOURTH. 



THE INTUITIVE POWER. 



INTUITIVE POWER. 



CHAPTER L 

MISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE INTUITIYB FACULTY, 

Office of this Power, — In our analysis of the powers cf 
the mind, one was described as having for its office the con* 
ception of truths that lie apart from the region and domain 
of sense — first principles and primary ideas, fundamental to, 
and presupposed in, the operations of the understanding, 
yet not directly furnished by sense. They are awakened in 
the mind on occasion of sensible experience, but it is not 
sensible experience which produces them. On the contrary, 
they spring up in the mind as by intuition, whenever the 
fitting occasion is presented. We must attribute their 
origin to a special power of the mind by virtue of which, 
under appropriate circumstances, it conceives the truths and 
ideas to which we refer. This power we have termed the 
originative or intuitive faculty. 

Specific Character. — In its specific character and function 
it is quite distinct fi-om any of the faculties as yet corsidered 
It does not, Kke the presentative power, bring before us, in 
direct cognizance, sensible objects ; nor does it, like the rep- 
resentative faculty, replace those objects to thought, in their 
absence. It neither presents, nor represents, any object 
whatever. It forms no picture of any thing to the mind's 
eye. It is a power of simple conception ; and yet it difters 
hi an important sense from the other conceptive powers. 



^230 EXISTENCE AND NATURE 

and that is, that it is not reflective but intuitive in its action. 
Its data are conceptions, but conceptions necessary and in- 
tuitive, seen at a glance, not the results of the reflective and 
discursive process. These data are ideas of reason, rather 
than notions of the understanding, or processes of reflection. 
There is no sensible object corresponding to these ideas. 
We do not see, or hear, or feel, or by any means cog-, 
nize, any thing of the sort ; nor can we form a picture, or 
represent to ourselves any such thing as, e,g.^ time, or space, 
or substance, or cause, and the like. They are conceptiona 
of the mind, and yet we conceive of them as realities. We 
cannot think them the mere creations and figments of the 
brain. And in this respect, again, they difier from the no- 
tions of the understanding — those classes and genera which 
we know to be the mere creations of the mind. 

Existence of such a Faculty, — If any are disposed to 
doubt the existence of the faculty under consideration, as a 
distinct power of the mind, we have only to ask, whence 
come these ideas ? They are given, not by perception, evi- 
dently, nor by memory, nor by imagination, for they fall not 
within the sphere of any of these faculties, that is the 
sphere of sense. They relate not to the sensible, but to the 
super-sensible. 

Nor are they the result of abstraction, as might at first 
appear. Particular instances being given, certain times, 
certain spaces, certain substances, certain instances of right 
and wrong conduct — it is the province of the faculty now 
named, to form, from these concrete ideas, the abstract no- 
tions of time, space, etc. But whence comes, in the first in- 
stance, the concrete idea ? Whence comes the notion of a 
time, a space, a substance, a cause, a right or wrong act? 
Abstraction cannot give these. Manifestly, however, we 
have a facult}^ of forming such conceptions, of perceiving 
such truths and realities ; and as manifestly, it is a faculty 
distinct from any hitherto considered. There are such reali- 
ties as time, space, substance, cause, right and wrong, etc., 



OF THE INTUITIVE FACULTY. 231 

The mind takes cognizance of them as such, knows them^ 
and knows them to be realities ; has, therefore, the faculty of 
knowing such truths. We may call it. if we please, the 
faculty of original and intuitive conception. 

Generally admitted, — The existence of ideas not directly 
furnished by sense or experience, and not given by the 
faculties whose office it is to deal with objects of sense, is 
a doctrine now generally admitted by the most eminent 
philosophers. Nor is it a doctrine peculiar to any one school. 
Under different names it is the doctrine substantially of 
Keid, Stewart, Brown, Price, among English metaphysi- 
cians ; Kant and his disciples in Germany ; Cousin, Jouffroy 
and others in France. It is denied by Hobbes, Condillac, 
Gassendi, and others of that- class who trace all our ideas to 
sense as their ultimate source and parentage. 

Opinion of Locke, — The position of Locke respecting 
this matter, has been the subject of much controversy. By a 
certain class of writers he has been regarded as denying the 
existence of any and all ideas not derived from sense, and has 
been classed with the school of Hobbes, Condillac, etc. His 
philosophy has been regarded by many as of doubtful and 
dangerous tendency, as leading to the denial of all truth 
and knowledge not within the narrow domain of sense, and 
BO conducting to materialism and skepticism. This can 
by no means be fairly charged upon him, nor upon hia 
philosophy. He held no such views, nor are they implied 
or contained in his doctrine. Locke, indeed, takes the 
ground that all our ideas may be traced ultimately to one 
of two sources, sensation or reflection ; the one taking cog- 
nizance of external objects, the other of our own mental 
operations : and that, whatever other knowledge we have 
wot given directly by these faculties, is produced by adding, 
repeating, and variously combining, in our own minds, the 
simple ideas derived from these sources. In this process, 
however, of adding, combining, etc., he really includes what 
tve prefer t< designate as a separate faculty of the mind. 



232 EXISTENCE AND NATURE 

and by aiiot her name. Ho distinctly recognizes the existence 
of the ideas which we attribute to this faculty — ideas of 
space, power, etc. — and gives a clear, and for the most part 
correct account of their origin. The mind, he says, observes 
what passes without — the changes there occurring; it reflects 
also on what passes within — the changes of its own ideas and 
purposes ; it concludes that like changes will be produced in 
the same things, under the same circumstances, in future ; it 
considers the possibility of effecting such changes, and so 
comes by the idea of power. In this Locke really includes 
essentially what we mean by suggestion or oTiginal concep- 
tion. Experience, it is universally admitted, furnishes the 
occasion, suggests the idea, must precede as the indispens- 
able condition of the mind's having that idea, and is, at least 
in this sense, the source of it, that it suggests the idea to 
the mind. All this, Locke fully admits, while, at the same 
time, he fails to draw the dividing line clearly between the 
ideas of sense and those in question. 

Objections to the term Suggestion. — The name original 
suggestion has been commonly applied, of late, especially in 
this country, to designate the faculty now under considera- 
tion. It is so used by Professor Upham, and by Dr. Way- 
land. It is liable, however, to serious objections. The term 
suggestion does not seem to me to express the peculiar 
characteristic, the distinctive element and office of this faculty. 
It is not peculiar to the ideas now in question, that they are 
suggested to the mind ; many other ideas, all ideas, in fact, 
are suggested by something. This class of our thoughts, 
therefore, is no more entitled to that name than any othef 
class. Nor is it peculiar to tnis class that they are original 
suggestions. The mind has many other equally original 
ideas that are likewise suggestions from things withoift, 
or from its own operations — mere fancies many of them, 
imaginations. We need to distinguish, in this case, the 
merely fanciful, the ideal, from the real. The terms in« 
tuiti^ ^ »and intuition, while they imply the reality of the 



OF THE INTUITIVE FACULTY. 233 

thing perceived, indicate, also, the immediateness of the 
process. 

More serious Objection. — But there is a still further and 
more serious objection to the term suggestion as thus em- 
ployed. The word does not, and cannot, with propriety, be 
made to denote what is now intended. It has a transitive 
significance, and cannot be made to denote a purely subject' 
ive process. Objects external suggest certain ideas to my 
mind. I suggest ideas to other minds. The faculty of sug* 
gestion lies, properly, not with the mind that receives the 
suggestion, but with the mind or object that gives it. But 
when we say the mind has the faculty of original suggestion, 
we do not mean ihat it has the power of suggesting original 
ideas to other mmds ; we refer to that power of the mind 
by which, in virtue of its constitution, certain ideas, not 
strictly derived from sense, are awakened in it when the occa- 
sion presents itself. We intend not a power of suggesting, 
but rather of receiving suggestions, a power of coiiceiving 
ideas, a power of original and intuitive conceptions. To say 
that the mind suggests to itself ideas of space, time, etc., is 
a singular use of terms. I understand what is meant by 
suggesting ideas to others, and what it is to receive sugges- 
tions from others, and to have ideas suggested by events, 
i>ccurrences and objects without, and how one thought may, 
by some law of association, suggest another. But how the 
mind suggests ideas to itself^ is not so clear. A man, in a fit 
of abstraction, talks to himself, but whether he suggests 
ideas to himself in that way, so that he finds his own conver 
eation instructive and profitable, may admit of question. 
The truth is, the idea is suggested, not by the mind, but to 
the mind — suggested from without. The mind has the power 
of conceiving certain ideas, which are awakened or excited 
in it by the occasion which presents itself. To call this fac- 
ulty a faculty of suggestion, is simply a misnomer. 

The true Doctrine. — All we can truly say, is, that th« 
idea is awakened or called up in the mind when the occasion 



^34 EXISTENCE AND NATURE 

presents, is suggested to it, not by it, suggested by the occ«k. 
Bion, and not by the mind itself. The mind has the idea 
within, has, moreover, tha faculty of conceiving the idea, is 
BO constituted, that, under certain circumstances, in view of 
wliat it observes without, or is conscious of within, the given 
idea is naturally and universally awakened in it; but the 
source of the suggestion lies not within the mind itself, and 
is not to be confounded with the mind's faculty of concep- 
tion. 

Use of the term hy Heid and others. — Dr. Reid has 
been referred to as authority for the use of the word sug- 
gestion to denote the faculty in question. Dr. Reid makes 
use of the word, but not in the sense now intended, not to 
denote a specific faculty of the mind, coordinate with per- 
ception, memory, imagination, etc., not, in fact, as a faculty 
at all. He refers to the well known fact, that ideas are sug- 
gested to the mind by objects and events without, and by 
the sensations thus awakened ; as, e, g,^ a certain sound sug- 
gests the passing of a coach in the street. So, also, one 
idea or sensation will suggest another. He uses the term to 
denote the suggestion of one thing to the mind hy another 
thing, and not to denote a power in the mind of suggesting 
things to itself. This is the correct use, and was not original 
with Reid. Berkley had used the term in the same way 
before him. Locke had used the word excited^ in the same 
sense. The idea expressed by these terms, and the use of 
the same or similar terms by which to express it, may be 
traced back as far, at least, as to the Christian Fathers. St. 
Augustine so uses it. Reid expressly applies the term to 
the perception of external objects, as, e, ^., certain sensations 
suggest the notion of extension and space. This is correct 
use. 

The Facts in the Case, — The truth is, things exist thus 
and thus, and we are constituted with reference to them aa 
thus existing. Sense and experience inform us of these ex- 
istences and reahties. Some of them are objects of direct 



OF THE INTUITIVE FACULTY. , 23d 

perception by the senses, as matter and its qualities. Some 
of them are not directly objects of perception, but are sug- 
gested to the mind by the operations of sense, and are 
intuitively perceived by the mind, and recognized as trutJi8 
and realities when thus suggested, as time, space, substance, 
cause, the right, the wrong, the beautiful, etc. 

The mind has the faculty of receiving and recognizing 
such truths and realities as thus suggested ; and this faculty 
we call the power of original and intuitive conception. 

These Ideas of internal Origin^ in what Sense. — It has 
been customary of late, especially in our country, to speak 
of the class of ideas now referred to as of internal origin^ 
in distinction from other ideas, derived more directly fronj 
Bense, and which are consequently designated as of external 
origin. As it is desirable to be exact in our use of terms, it 
may be well to inquire in what sense any of our ideas are 
of external, and in what sense of internal origin, and 
wherein the ideas, now under consideration, differ from any 
others in respect to their source. 

Ideas of external Orighi, — A large class of our ideaa 
evidently relate to objects of sense, objects external and 
material, of which we take cognizance through the senses. 
Such ideas may be said to be of external origin, inasmuch 
as they relate to things without, and are dependent on thu 
external object as the indispensable condition of their devel- 
opment. Were it not for the external object producing 
the sensation of color or of hardness, I should not have the 
idea of redness or of hardness ; were it not for the external 
object resisting my movements, I should not get the idea of 
externality. The idea is, in these cases, dependent on, and 
limited by, the sensation or the perception. They corre- 
spond as shadow and substance. The idea of resistance, and 
the perception of it, the idea of sound or color, and the sen-i 
Ration of it, are coextensive, synchronous, and, as to con- 
tents, identical. 

These^ in a Sense^ i'liemaU — • In another sense, however, 



23^ EXISTENCE AND NATURE 

even these ideas are of internal origin, that is, they are the 
mind's own ideas ; they spring up in the mind, and not out 
of it ; they are, as ideas, strictly internal states, affections, 
acts of the mind itself. Take away intelligence, reason, the 
light divine, from the soul of man, and the external objec^« 
may exist as before, and produce the same effect on the 
organs of sense, but the ideas no longer follow. The phys- 
sical organs of the idiot are affected in the same way by ex- 
ternal objects as those of any other person, but he gets not 
the same ideas. These, it is the office of the mind to pro- 
duce and fashion for itself out of the occasion and material 
furnished by sense. And this is as true of ideas relating to 
external objects as to any other. 

Sensation an internal Affection, — It may even be said of 
this class of ideas, that their suggestion is of internal origin. 
The immediate occasion of the mind's having the idea of 
extension, weight, hardness, color, etc., is not the existence 
of the object itself, possessing such and such qualities, but 
the impression produced by the object and its quaUties on 
the sense ; in other words, the sensation awakened in us 
This it is which awakens and calls forth in the mind the 
idea of the external object. Were there, for any reason, no 
sensation, then the objects might exist as now, btit we should 
have no idea of them. But sensation is an internal affection, 
revealed by consciousness, and the ideas awakened by it 
and dependent on it, are immediately of internal origin, 
though mediately dependent on some preceding external 
condition and occasion. 

Ideas of internal Origin. — If we examine, now, the ideas 
of internal origin, so called, furnished by the faculty of ori- 
ginal and intuitive conception, we find that, while they do 
not directly relate to objects of sense external and material, 
they nevertheless depend, in like manner, on some preceding 
operation of sense as the occasion of their development, 
Observation of what goes on without, or consciousness of 
what goes on within furnishes the occasion, as all admit, od 



OF THIS FACULTY. 237 

which these ideas are awakened in the mind. The idea of 
time, 6.^., is connected with the succession oi events, ex- 
ternal or internal — things without and thought and feeling 
within following each other — which succession is matter of 
observation or of consciousness. The idea of space is con- 
nected with the observation or sensation of body as ex- 
tended. The idea of beauty and deformity is awakened by 
the perception of external objects as possessing certain 
qualities which we thus designate. The idea of right and 
wrong in like manner connects vrith something observed iv 
human conduct. So of all ideas of this class. They are not 
disconnected with, nor independent of, the appropriate ob- 
jects of observation and consciousness. These objects must 
exist, these occasions must be furnished, as the indispensahU 
condition of the existence of the idea in the mind. Dis^ 
pense with the succession of events or the observation of 
it, and you dispense with the idea of time in the humdC 
mind. 

Conclusion, — So far as regards the origin of the ideas in 
question, it is not easy to draw a dividing line, then, between 
the two classes, marking the one as external^ the other as 
internal. Both are of external origin, and equally so, in 
this sense — that they both depend, and equally depend, on 
some previous exercise of sense as the occasion and condi- 
tion of their development. Both are of internal origin, ic 
another sense — that they are both awakened in the mind — 
are both the product of its own activity. 

Difference lies in what, — The difference is not so much 
that of externality or internality of origin , as it is a differ- 
ence of character. The one relates to objects of sense, 
which can be seen, heard, felt ; the other to matters not less 
real, not less obvious, but of which sense does not tike 
direct cognizance. In either case they spring from the con- 
stitution and laws of the mind. Such is my constitution 
that exteinal and material objects, affecting my senses, flir- 
nish me ideas relating to sr-ch objects. And such is mj 



238 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

constitution that certain relations and qualities of things not 
directly cognizable by sense, and certain realities and facta 
of an aesthetic and moral nature, likewise impress my mind, 
and thus awaken in me the idea of such relations and real- 
ities. The objects, the relations, the realities, exist, they 
are perceived by the mind, and thus the first idea of them 
IS obtained. Color exists, and the eye is so constituted as 
to be able to perceive it, and thus the idea of color is awa« 
kened in the mind. So right and wrong exist, and the mind 
»s so constituted as to be able to perceive and recognize their 
existence, and thus the idea of right is awakened in the 
mind. The faculty we call perception in the one case, orig 
inal conception in the other. 



CHAPTER II. 

TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY 

§ L — Primary Truths. 

Primary Truths and Primary Ideas as distinguished, — 
The faculty in question may be regarded as the source of 
primary beliefs, truths, cognitions, intuitively perceived^ and 
also of primary and original conceptions, notions, ideas, also 
intuitively conceived. 

The diiference between a conception or idea, and a belief 
or truth, is obvious. The notion of existence, and the 
knowledge or belief that I, myself, exist, are clearly distin- 
guishable. The idea of cause, and the conviction that every 
event has a cause, are distinct mental states. The one is a 
primitive and intuitive conception, the other a primitive and 
intuitive truth. Every primary truth involves a primitive 
Bnd original conception. 

Mcistence of first Truthd. — All science and all reasoning 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACl'LTY. 239 

de])end ultimately on certain first truths or princi] left, not 
learned by experience, but prior to it, the evidence and cer- 
tainty of which lie back of all reasoning and all experience. 
Take away these elementary truths, and neither science nor 
reasonmg are longer possible, for want of a beginning and 
foundation. Every proposition which carries evidence with 
it, either contains that evidence in itself, or derives it from 
some other proposition on which it depends. And the same 
is true of this other proposition, and so on forever, until we 
come, at last, to some proposition which depends on no 
ot-her, brrt is self-evident, a first truth or principle. Whence 
come these first principles ? Not of course from experience, 
for they are involved in and essential to all experience. 
They are native or d priori convictions of the mind, instinc- 
tive and intuitive judgments. 

Existence of first Truths admitted, — The existence of 
first truths or principles, as the basis of all acquired knowl- 
edge, has been very generally admitted by phiL-^sophers. 
They have designated these elementary principles, however, 
by widely different appellations. By some, they have been 
termed instinctive beliefs, cognitions, judgments, etc , an 
appellation mentioned by Hamilton as employed by a very 
great number of writers from Cicero downward, including, 
among the rest, Scaliger, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, 
Hume, Reid, Stewart, Jacobi. Others, again, have termed 
them a priori or transcendental principles, cognitions, judg- 
ments, etc., as being prior to experience, and transcending 
the knowledge derived from sense. So Kant and his school 
termed them. By the Scotch writers they have been termed, 
also, principles of common sense^ in place of which expression 
Stewart prefers the title, fundamental laws of human belief. 

Criteria of prim^ar]/ Truths. — It becomes an important 
mquiry, in what manner we may recognize and distinguish 
first truths from all others. Besides common consent, or uni- 
versality of belief on the part of those who have arrived at 
years of discretion, huffier relies, also, upon the following, 



240 TKUTHS A:ND CONCEPTIONS 

as criteria of first principles ; that they are such truths as 
can neither be defended nor attacked by any propositions, 
either more manifest or more certain than themselves ; and 
that their practica. influence extends even to those who 
would deny them. Reid gives, among other criteria, the 
following : consent of ages and nations ; the absurdity of 
Vhe opposite; early appearance in the mind, prior to educa- 
tion and reasoning ; practical necessity to the conduct and 
concerns of life. Hamilton gives the following as tests or 
criteria of first truths: 1. Incomprehensibilty , — We com- 
prehend that the thing is, but not how or why it is. 2. Bimr 
fUcity, — If the cognition or belief can be resolved into 
several cognitions or beliefs, it is complex, and so, no longer 
original. 3. Necessity^ tend consequent universality, — If 
necessary, it is univeii^al, and if absolutely universal, then 
it must be necessary. 4. Comparative evidence and cer- 
tainty, 

Summary of Criteria, — The following may be regarded 
as a summary of the more important criteria by which to 
distinguish primary truths from all others. 

a. A*3 first truths, or primary data of intellegence, they 
are, of course, not derived from observation or experience, 
but ^re prior and necessary to such experience. 

b. They are simple truths, not resolvable into some prior 
and comprehending truth from which they may be de- 
duced. 

c. As simple truths, they do not admit of proof there 
being nothing more certain which can be brought in evidence 
of them. 

d. While they do not admit of proof, the denial of tJiem 
involves us in absurdity, 

e. Accordingly, as simple, and as self-evident, they are 
universally admitted. 

Enumeration of some of the Truths usually regarded as 
^imary, • — Different writers have included some more^ 
some fewer, of these first principles in their list ; while nc 



FljRNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 241 

one bas professed, so far as I am aware, to give a coiapletw 
enumeration of them. Such an enumeration, if it were pos 
eible, would be of great service in philosophy. The follow- 
mg have been generally included among primary truths by 
those who have attempted any specification, viz. ; our per- 
sonal existence, our personal identity, the existence of efficient 
causes, the existence of the material world, the uniformity 
of nature ; to which would be added, by others, the relia- 
bility of memory, and of our natural faculties generally, and 
personal freedom or power over our own actions and voli- 
tions. 

Correctness of this Enumeration, — That the truths now 
speidfied are in some sense primary, that they are generally 
admitted and acted upon, among men, without process of 
reasoning, and that, when stated, they command the universal 
and instant assent of even the untaught and unreflecting 
mind, there can be little doubt. Whether, in all cases, how 
ever, they come strictly under the rules and criteria now 
given ; whether, for example, our own existence and identity 
are primary data of consciousness ; or whether, on the con- 
trary, they are not inferred from the existence of those 
thoughts and feelings of which we are directly conscious, a% 
for example, in the famous argument of Descai'tes, Cogito^ 
ergo sum^ may admit of question. 

§ 11. — Intuitftb Conceptions. 

Of the results or operations of the faculty under consider- 
ation, we have considered, as yet, only that class which ma> 
be designated as primary truths^ in distinction from primitive 
or intuitive conceptions. To this latter class let us now 
direct our attention. 

Proposed consideration of some of the more important, — 
Without undertaking to give a complete list of our original 
or intuitive conceptions, there are certain of the more im- 
portant, which seem to require specific consideration. Such 

11 



242 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

arc the ideas of space, time, identity, cause, the Leautiful, 
the right — ideas difficult to define and explain, but, on that 
account, requiring the more careful investigation. Let us, 
then, take up these conceptions one by one, and inquire more 
particularly into their nature. 

I. Space. 

Subjective View. — What is space ? Is it a mere idea, a 
Liere conception of the mind, or has it reality ? This is a 
question which has much perplexed philosophers. Kant ana 
his school regard both time and space as merely subjective, 
mere conceptions or forms which the mind imposes upon 
outward things, having no reality, save as conceptions, or 
laws of thought. 

Opposite View. — On the other hand, if we make space a 
reality, and not a mere conception, w^hat is it, and where is 
it ? Not matter, and yet real, a something which exists, 
distinct from matter, and yet not mind. Pressed with 
these difficulties, some distinguished and acute writers have 
resolved time and space into qualities of the one infinite and 
absolute Being, the divine mind. Such was the view of 
Clarke and Newton, a view favored also by a recent French 
writer of some note — C. H. Bernard, Professor of Philoso- 
phy in the Lycee Bonaparte. 

A middle Ground, — These must be regarded as, on 
^ther hand, extreme views. But is there a middle ground 
possible or conceivable ? Let us see. What, then, is the 
simple idea of space ? What mean we by that word ? 

Idea of Space. — When we contemplate any material ob 
ject, any existence of which the senses can take cognizance, 
we are cognizant of it as extended, i. 6., occupying space^ 
nor can wo possibly conceive of it as otherwise. The idea 
of space, then, is involved in the very idea of extended sub- 
stance, or material existence, given along with it, impossible 
to be separated from it. We may regard it, therefore, as 
Ae ccndition or postulate of being, considered as niaiericd 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 243 

txistence^ posseesing extension^ etc. The idea of it is 
essential to the idea of matter, the reality of it to the 
reality of matter ; for if there were no space, there could 
be no extension in space, and, without extension, no mat- 
ter. 

Not a mere Conception. — Is space, then, a mere con- 
caption of the mind, merely subjective ? Unquestionably 
not. It is not, indeed, a substance or entity^ it has nc 
heing. It is not matter, for it is, itself, the condition of 
matter; it is not spirit, for then it were intelligent. It ia 
not an existence^ then, strictly speaking, not a thing cre- 
ated, nor is it in the power of deity either to creati> or to 
annihilate it, for creation and annihilation relate only to ex- 
istence. And yet space is a reality^ and not a mere concep- 
tion of the mind. For, if so, then were there no longer any 
mind to conceive it, there would be no longer any space ; if 
no mind to think, then no thought. Were the whole race 
of intelligent beings, then, to be blotted out of existence, 
and all things else to remain as now, space would be gone- 
while, yet, matter would exist, extension — worlds moving 
on as before. Extension in what, motion in what ? Not in 
space, for that is no longer extant; defunct, rather, with the 
last mind whose expiring torch went out in the gloom of 
night. Unless we make matter^ then, to be also a mere con- 
ception of the mind, space is not so. If the one is real, the 
other is. If one is a mere conception, so is the other ; and 
to this result the school of Kant actually come. Matter, it- 
self, is a subjective phenomenon, a mode of mind, or, rather^ 
if it be any thing more, we have no means of knowing it to 
be so. 

If, on the contrary, as we hold, matter exists^ and is an 
object of ir^ mediate perception by the senses, then there is 
Buch a thing as space also, the condition of its existence, a real* 
ity^ though not an entity^ the idea of it given along with that 
of matter, the reality of it implied in the reality of matter- 
Matter presupposes it, depends on it as its sine qua non. 



244 TKUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

It depends on nothing. Were there no matter, there woula 
be none the less space, but only space unoccupied. In that 
case, the idea of space might never occur to any mind, but 
the reality would exist just as now. Were all matter and 
all mind to be blotted out of being, space would still be what 
it is now. 

The Idea^ how awakened — JSow come we hy our Idea of 
Space ? — Sense gives us our first knowledge of matter, as 
extended, etc., and so furnishes the occasion on which the 
idea of space is first awakened in the mind. In this sense, 
and no other, does it originate in sensation or experience. 
It is a simple idea, logically prior to experience, because the 
very notion oimsittQY presupposes space; yet, chronologically^ 
as regards the matter of development in the mind, subse- 
quent to experience and cognizance of matter. 

II. Time. 

Idea and Definition, — What we have said of space will 
enable us better to understand what is the nature of that 
analogous and kindred conception of the mind, in itself so 
simple, yet so difiicult of definition and explanation - — Titne^ 
The remarks already made, respecting space, will almost 
equally apply to this subject also. 

Space, we defined as the condition of being^ regarded as 
extended^ material. Time is the condition of being^ regarded 
as in action,, movement,, change. 

Sense informs us not only of magnitudes, extensions, 
material objects, and existences, as around us in nature, but 
of movements and changes continually taking place among 
these various existences ; as extension is essential to those 
material forms, so succession is essential to these movementa 
and changes ; they cannot take place, nor be cone reived to 
take place, without it ; and as space is involved in, and 
given along with, the very idea of exte?ision,, so time is in- 
volved in, and given along with, the very idea oi succession, 
rime, then, is the condition of action, movement, change. 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 245 

e^ent, as space is of extended and material existence. It ig 
that which is required in order that something should take 
place or occur, just as space is that which is required in or- 
der that something should exist as material and having 
form. As space gives us the question where^ time gives us 
the question when. It is the place of events, as space is ol 
forms. 

Sromri^s Vtew. — 'Dr. Brown defines time to be the mere 
relation of one event to another, as prior and subsequent. 
It follows, from this view, that if there were no events^ then 
no time^ since the latter is a mere relation subsisting among 
the former. Is this so ? No doubt we derive our idea of 
time from the succession of events ; but is time merely an 
idea, merely a conception, merely a relation, or has it reality 
out of and aside from our mind's conceiving it, and inde- 
pendent of the series of events that take place in it ? 

^ot a mere Conception, — Like space, it is a law of 
thought, a conception, and like space it is not a mere law of 
thought, not a mere conception of the mind, not altogether 
subjective. Nor is it a mere relation of one event to an 
other in succession. It is, on the contrary, necessary to^ and 
prior to, all succession and all events. It does not depend 
on the occurrence of events, but the occurrence of events 
depends on it. As space would still exist were matter an- 
nihilated, so time would continue were events to cease. 
But were time blotted out there could be no succession, no 
occurrence or event. Time is essential, not to the mere 
thought or conception of events, but to the possibility of 
the thing itself. It is not, then, a mere idea, or conception 
of the mind, nor a mere relation. It has, in a sense, object- 
ivity and reality, since it is the ground and condition of all 
continuous active existence, as space is of all extended 
formal existence, the sine qud non^ without which not 
merely our idea and conception of such existence would 
vanish, but the thing itself. There could be no such thing 
as active continuous existence, either of mind or matter. 



246 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

since mind and spirit, as continuous and persistent in any of 
its moods and phases, much more as passing from one to 
another of those moods, impHes succession. Time is t<? 
mind wliat space is to matter. Matter protends in space, 
mind in time. Time is even less purely subjective than 
space, for should we say that both matter and space are 
mere subjective phenomena, mere conceptions, yet even to 
those very conceptions, to those subjective phenomena, as 
states of mind, time is essential. 

Whence our Idea of Time. — It is with the idea of time 
as with that of space. Logically^ time is the condition, a 
priori, of all experience, because of aU continuous existence 
and all consciousness ; but chronologically it is a posteriori, 
^. 6., it is, to us, a matter of sensible experience. Sense is 
the occasion on which the idea of time is first awakened in 
our minds. We first exist, continue to exist, are conscious 
of that existence, conscious of succession, thoughts, feelmgs, 
sensations, and so we get the idea of time. 

Time is necessary to succession / yet had there been no 
succession known to us, we should have had no idea of time. 
We are to distinguish, of course, between our idea of time 
and the thing itself. Locke is incorrect in making the idea 
of succession prior to that of duration, in itself considered^ 
and not merely as regards our knowledge. In this respect, 
Cousin has ably and justly criticised the philosophy of 
Locke. 

Time a relative Idea, — Looking at time merely as an 
idea or conception of our own minds, it is simply the per- 
ception of relation / the relation of passing events to each 
other, the relation of our various modes and states of being, 
our thoughts, feelings, etc., to each other, as successive, or 
to external objects and events, as also successive ; the 
whereabouts, in a word, of one's self, one's present consci- 
ousness, in relation to what passes, or has passed, v/ithin or 
without , the relation of the present me to the former me, 
, as regards both the succession of internal or external events. 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 247 

Heuce the mind ha? only to whhdraw itself completely 
from the consciousness of its former states and of events 
passing without, and it loses altogether its idea of time. 

Thus in Sleep, — This we find to be the case in sleep. 
The thinking goes on ; the idea of present self is kept up, 
but not of self in relation to the objects that are really 
about us, or to the actual part of its own existence. What- 
ever relation seems to exist, is imaginary and untrue. We 
no longer know where we are, nor exactly who we are. 
The avenues of communication with the external world are 
Bhilt up, the eye, the ear, etc., are inactive, the spirit with- 
draws from the outward into itself, as far as this is possible, 
while the connection of body and mind still continues ; its 
relations to former things and to present things are forgot- 
ten and unknown. What is the consequence ? We lose aL 
idea of time ^ the moment of falling asleep and of our begin 
ning to awake, if the sleep have been sound, is apparentlj^ 
one and the same moment. The first effect of returnino: 
consciousness is to resume the broken thread of time, to 
find your place again in the series of things, whether it is 
morning or night, what morning or what night it is ; to 
find yourself, in fact. You had forgotten yourself to use 
a familiar phrase exactly descriptive of the present case. 
What of yourself had you forgotten ? Simply your relor 
tion to the order and succession of things without, and of 
thoughts and feelings within — your place in the series. In 
sleep, your existence, so far as it is an object of conscious- 
ness at all, is simply that of each passing moment I j 
itself. 

Tlius in absorbing Pursuits, — Tou have only, in yom 
waking moments, to lose sight as completely of that rel^ 
tion and succession of the present self to the past ^elf, oi 
the me to the not me, and you lose as completely all idea 
of time. Does this ever occur ? Partially, whenever thp 
attention is absorbed in any intensely interesting pursuit or 
study. T'me passes insensibly then. We are abstracted 



248 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

from the series, our attention is withdrawn from surround- 
ing objects and events, and even from our own thoughts, as 
Such, We lose sight of the me, and, of course, of the rela- 
tion of the me, to passing eventb. and therefore lose the 
sense of time. When the spell is at last broiceL we must 
go to seek ourselves again, as we would seek a child, that, 
ia its play, had wandered from our side. 

Also in Disease. — Something of the same sort occurs in 
severe and protracted sickness. The mind loses its reckon- 
mg, so to speak, as a ship in a storm loses latitude and 
longitude, and wanders from its course, unable longer to 
take its daily observations. 

Idea of Time in Children. — You have doubtless noticed 
that children have little idea of time. It is much the same 
to them, one day with another, one week with another ; it 
is morning, or afternoon, or night indifferently. The dis« 
tinction and recognition of time, and of one time as differ- 
erit from another, is slowly acquired, and with difficulty. 
They have not that self-consciousness, that apprehension of 
the present and of the past, as related to each other in the 
series of events, which is involved in the idea of time. 
They are more like one in sleep, like one dreaming, like 
one in reverie, wholly absorbed with the present moment, 
the present consciousness. 

Time longer to a Child than an Adult. — What has been 
said explains, also, the well-known fact, that time seems 
longer to a child than to an adult person. It is, as we have 
Keen, the relation of the present self, as affected by changes 
internal and external, to the past self as thus affected, that 
gives us the idea and the standard of time. Of course, the 
shortei- the line that represents the past, the longer, in com- 
parison, that present duration which is measured by it 
Now the child has fewer past thoughts and events with 
whicl to compare the present ones ; hence^ they hold a 
greater comparative magnitude to him than to us, who have 
a greater range of past existence and past consciouiuiesi 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACCITT, ^49 

mth which to connect the passing moments. Hence, the 
longer we live, the more quickly pass our years, the shorter 
appears any given period of duration. 

Applied to eternal Duration, — You have but to apply 
this thought to Him whose going forth is from of old, who 
inhahiteth eternity^ and you have a new meaning in the 
beautiful thought of the Hebrew poet, that with Him a 
thousand years are but as a day. To that eternal mind, the 
remoteness of the period when the first star lighted up the 
vault of night at his bidding, may be recent as an evect of 
yesterday. 

III. Identity. 

Difficult of Explanation. — Perhaps no subject, in the 
whole range of intellectual philosophy, has been the occasion 
of more perplexity and embarrassment than this. It i«, in 
itself, a difficult subject to comprehend and explain. We 
know what we mean by identity, but to tell what that 
meaning is, to state the thing lucidly, and explain it phi- 
losophically, is another matter. It becomes necessary to 
examine the subject, therefore, with some care, in order to 
avoid confusion of ideas, and positively erroneous opinions. 
The subject is one of some importance in its theological, as 
well as its strictly philosophical bearings. 

Not Similarity, — Identity is not similarity^ not mere 
resemblance — similar things are not the same thing. We 
may suppose two globes or spheres precisely alike in every 
respect — of the same size, color, form, of the same material, 
of the same chemical composition and substance, presenting 
to the eye and the touch, and every other sense, the very 
same appearance and qualities, so that, if viewed succes- 
sively, we should not recognize the difference ; yet they are 
not identical ; they are, by the very supposition, two distinct 
globes, two entities, two substances, and to -say that they 
are idciitu-al, is to say that two things are only one. Sim^i^ 
larity is luyi !«.iyi)t3iv '^o far from it, as Aixhbishop Whately 



250 TKUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

has well remarked, it is not even implied of necessity in 
identity. A person may so far change as to be quite un- 
like his former self in appearance, size, etc., and yet be the 
same person. Not only are the two ideas quite distinct, but 
the one may be, and in fact is, in most cases, the virtual 
negation of the otLer. Resemblance, in most cases, implies 
difference of objects, the opposite of identity. To say tha 
A and B resemble each other, is to say that, as known to us, 
they are not one and the same, not identical. It is only 
when one and the same object falls under cognizance at di- 
verse times, so that we compare the object, as now known, 
with the same object as previously known, that resemblance 
and identity can possibly be predicated of the same thing. 

Identity is only another term for sameness [idem) ; any one 
who knows what that means, knows what identity means, 
and that it does not mean mere similarity or resemblance. 

N'ot sameness of chemical Composition, — IN'or does 
sameness of chemical composition constitute identity. This 
is merely similarity. Two bodies may be composed of the 
same chemical elements, in the same proportion, and pos- 
sessing the same general form and structure, yet they are 
not the same body. A given piece of wood or iron may be 
divided into a number of parts, each closely resembling the 
others, of the same appearance, size, figure, color, w^ eight, 
and of the same chemical components ; yet no one of these 
is identical with any other. When we say, in such a case, 
that the different pieces are of the same material, we use the 
word same with some latitude, to denote, not that they are 
composed of strictly the same particles, that the substance 
of the one is the very identical substance of the other, but 
only that they consist of the same sort or hind of substance, 
that they are, e. g.^ both wood, or both iron. But this does 
not constitute identity. 

There is no limit to the number of identical bodies w^hich 
it is possible to conceive on this theory of identity. The same 
power that constricts one body of g ven chemical elements. 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 251 

and of given form and structure, may make two such, or 
ten, and if the first two are identical, the ten are, and they 
may exist at one and the same time, beside each other^ 
identical with each other, yet ten, every one of which is it* 
self, and yet every one is each of the others ! 

A relative Term, — Identity is a relative term, like most 
others that are expressive of quaUty. The term straight 
implies the idea of that which is not straight ; beauty, the 
idea of deformity ; greatness, its opposite ; and so of others. 
Identity stands related to diversity as its opposite. To have 
the idea of identity, is to have that of diversity also. To 
affirm the former, is to deny the latter, and to deny is to 
have the idea of that which is denied. I do not say there 
can be no identity without diversity, but only that there can 
be no idea of the one without the idea, also, of the other, 
any more than there can be the idea of a tall man without 
the idea of short men. 

Opposite of Diversity, — To affirm identity, then, is sim- 
ply to deny diversity ,^ to predicate unity, sameness, oneness. 
Other objects there are, hke this, it may be, similar in every 
respect, capable of being confounded with it, and mistaken 
for it, but they are other and not it. This we affirm when 
we affirm identity, non-diversity,^ 7ion-otherness, Whatevei 
it be that marks off and distinguishes a thing from all othei 
like or unlike objects — whatever constitutes its individual 
ity^ its essence — in that consists its identity. 

Different applications of the Term, — Evidently, then, the 
word has somewhat different senses as applied to different 
classes of objects, whose individuality or essence varies. 
There are three distinct classes of objects to which the term 
is applicable. 1. Spiritual existence. 2. Organic and ani 
mate material existence. 3. Inorganic matter. 

As applied to the first Class. — As regards the first clas&^ 
spiritual existe^ices^ their identity consists in simple oneness 
and continuity of existence. It is enough that the soul or 
spirit exist, and continue to exist. So long as this is thti 



252 -TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

case, identity is predicable of it. Should that existence crease 
the identity ceases, since the object no longer exists of which 
identity can be affirmed. Should another spirit be created 
in its place, and even, if the thing be supposahle^ should it 
be endowed, not only with the same qualities, but the same 
consciousness, so as to be conscious of all that of which the 
former was conscious, still it would not be identical with the 
former. It is, by the very supposition, another spirit, and 
not the same. To be identical with it, it must be the very 
game essence, being, or existence, and not some other in itM 
place. 

It is only of spiritual immaterial existence that identity, in 
its strict and complete sense, is properly predicable, since it 
is only this class of existences that retains, unimpaired, its 
simple oneness, sameness, continuity of essence. 

Personal Identity. — When we speak oi personal identity, 
we mean that of the spirit, the soul, the ego, in distinction 
from the corporeal" material part. The evidence of personal 
identity is consciousness. We know that the thinking con- 
scious existence of to-day, which we call self me, is one 
and the same with the thinking conscious self or me of 
yesterday, and not some other persolial existence of like 
attributes and condition. 

Lockers Idea, — Mr. Locke strangely mistook the evidence 
of personal identity for identity itself and affirmed that our 
identity consists in our consciousness. If this were so, tnen, 
whenever our consciousness were interrupted, as in sound 
sleep, or in fainting, or delirium, our identity would be 
gone. This error has been pointed out, and fully explained^ 
by Dr. Reid, and Bishop Butler, the former of whom makes 
this supposition : that the same individual is, at different 
periods of life, a boy at school, a private in the army, and a 
military commander ; while a boy, he is whipped for robbing an 
orchard; when a soldier, he takes a standard from the enemy, 
and at that time recollects, perfectly, the whipping when a 
boy ' when commander, he remembers taking the standard 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 2oh 

but not the whipping. It follows, according to IVIr Locke, 
tliat the soldier is identical with the boj, and the general 
with the soldier, because conscious of the same things, but 
the general is not identical with the boj, because not con- 
scious of the same things, that is, a is 5, and h is c, yet a is 
not c. The truth is, identity^ and the evidence of it, are two 
things. Were there no consciousness of any thing past, there 
would still be identity so long as unity and continuity of 
existence remained. 

2. Identity as applied to the second Class. — As regards 
organic material existence, whether animal or vegetable, the 
identity consists in that which constitutes the essence or 
being of the thing, which constitutes it an animal or vege- 
table existence. It is not mere body, not mere particles of 
matter, of such number and nature, or even of such arrange- 
ment and structure, but along with this, there is a higher 
principle involved — that of life. The continuity of this 
mysterious principle of life, under the same general structure 
and organization of material parts, making throughout one 
complex unity, one entity, one being, though with many 
changes, it may be, of separate parts and particles compos- 
ing the organization ; this constitutes the identity of the ob- 
ject. 

The identity is no longer complete, no longer absolute, 
because there is no longer, as in the case of spiritual exist- 
ence, absolute sameness of essence. Of the complex being 
under consideration, animal or vegetable, the life-principle is, 
indeed, one and the same throughout all periods of its exist- 
ence, but the material organization retains not the same 
absolute essence, only the same general structure, and form, 
and adaptation of parts, while the parts and particles them- 
selves are continually changing. It is only in a modilied and 
partial sense, then, not in strict philosophical use of language, 
that we can predicate identity of any material organic exist- 
ence We mean by it, simply, conti^iuity of life under the 
«ame general structure and organization; for so far as it haa 



254 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

unity at all, this is it. This enables us to distinguish suca 
iin object from any and all other like objects of the same 
kmd or sort. 

S. Identity as applied to the third Class, — - As regards 
riere i-iorganic matter, its identity consists, again, in its 
absolute oneness and sameness. There must be no change 
of particles, for the essence of the thing now considered 
JGS not in any peculiarity of form, or structure, or life-prin- 
ciple, all which are wanting, but simply in the number and 
nature of the particles that make up the mass or substance 
jf the thing, ar^d if these change in the least, it is no longer 
the same essence. There is, properly, then, no such thing 
as identity in the cases now under consideration, since the 
particles of any material substance are liable to constant 
changes. It is only in a secondary and popular sense that 
we speak of the identity of merely inorganic material sub- 
stance ; strictly speaking, it has no identity, and continues 
not the same for any two moments. 

We say, however, of two pieces of paper, that they are of 
the same color, meaning that they are both white or both 
red ; of two coins, that they are of the same fineness, the 
same size, and weight, etc., meaning, thereby, only that tht 
two things are of the same sort of color, the same degree 
of fineness, etc., and not that the color of the one or the 
fineness and size of the one is absolutely the essential and 
identical color, size, fineness of the other. It is by a similar 
use of terms, not in their strict and proper, but in a loose and 
secondary sense, that we speak of the identity or sameness 
of any material substance in itself considered. Strictly, it 
has no identity unless its substance is absolutely I'nchanged, 
which is not true of most, if, indeed, of any material exist- 
ence, for any successive periods of time. 

Popular Use, — There is a popular use of this term 
which requires further notice. We speak of the identity ot 
a mountain, a river, a tree, or any like object in nature. Il 
if the same mountain, we say, that we looked upon in child 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 255 

hood, tlie same tree under which we sat when a boy, the 
Bame river in which we bathed or fished in youth. Now 
there is a sense in which this is true and correct. Theio 
has been change of substance unquestionably, and therefore 
there is not absolute identity ; but there is, after all, numer- 
ical sameness, and this is what we mean when we speak of 
the sameness or identity of the object. It constitutes a suf 
ficient ground for such use of terms. You recognize the 
book, the mountain, the river, as one you have seen before. 
The tree that you pass in your morning walk you recognize 
as the very tree under which you sat ten years ago. Leaves 
have changed, bark and fibres have changed ; branches are 
larger and more numerous ; boughs, perhaps, have fallen by 
time and by tempest ; it has changed as you have changed, 
it has grown old like yourself, with changing seasons; its 
v^erdure and foliage, like your hopes and plans, lie scattered 
around it, and yet it is to you the same tree. How so ? It 
is the same numerical unity. Of a thousand or ten thousand 
similar trees, similar in species, in growth, and form, and 
adaptation of parts, in size, color, general appearance, etc., it 
is this individual one, and not some other of the same sort or 
species growing elsewhere, that you refer to. It is the same 
numerical unitv and not some other one of the series. Still 
there must be continuity of existence in order to identity 
even in this popular sense of the term. Were the parts en- 
tirely changed and new ones substituted, as in the puzzle of 
the knife with several successive handles and blades, or the 
ship whose original timbers, planks, cordage, and entire 
substance, had, in course of time, by continued repairs, been 
removed and replaced by new ; in such a case, we do not 
ordinarily speak or think of the object as being any longer 
the same. 

This not absolute Identity. — In the cases now under 
consideration, in which, in popular language, objects are 
termed " same" and " identical," which are not strictly so, 
there is comparative rather than absolute unity and identity 



256 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

There is reference always in such cases to other objects of 
the same kind, sort, and description, a series of which the 
object of present cognition is one, and to which series it 
holds the same relation now that it held formerly. As 
when, of several books on a table, you touch one^ and after 
the interval of some moments or hours touch the same 
again ; you say. The book I last touched is the same I touched 
before, the identical one ; you do not mean that its substance 
is absolutely unchanged, that it has the same precise number 
of particles in its composition as before — this is not in 
your mind at all — but only that the unity thus designated 
is the same unity previously designated, that, and not some 
other one of the series of similar objects. It is a compar- 
ative idea, a comparative identity, in which numerical unity 
is the element chiefly regarded. 

Possible Plurality implied, — In all cases where the idea 
of identity arises in the mind, there is implied a possible 
plurality of objects of the same general character ; the idea 
of such diversity or plurality i? before the mind, and the 
foundation of that idea is the dinjrence of cognition. The 
same object is viewed by the same person at different tim^s 
or by different persons at the same time, and in that case, 
though the object itself should be absolutely one and the 
same, yet there have been distinct, separate cognitions of it, 
and this plurality or diference of cognition is a sufficient 
foundation for the idea of a possible diversity of object. 
The book as known to-day and the book as known yester 
day, are two distinct objects of thought. The cognition 
now, and the cognition then, are two separate acts of the 
mind ; and the question arises. Are the objects distinct, as 
well as the cognitions ? This is the question of identity. 
Toil have an immediate, irresistible conviction that the ob 
ject of these several cognitions is one and the same. You 
affirm its identity, absolute or comparative, as the case may 
be. 

Tli6 Conception of Idevjtity amounts to what, — In ever^ 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 257 

case of affirmed identity, then, there is implied a possible 
plurality of objects ; a difference of cognition of a given object, 
whether one person cognizant at different times, or different 
persons at the same time ; a question whether the possible 
plurality, as regards the object of these different cognitions, 
is an actual plurality ; a conviction and decision that it is not, 
that the object is one and the same ; and this sameness and 
unity are absolute or comparative^ according as we use the 
language in its strict, primitive, philosophical meaning, or in 
Its loose and popular sense. In the one case, it is sameness 
of absolute essence, in the other, sameness of nominal rela- 
^on to others of a series or class. 

IV. Cause. 

Meaning of the Term, — The idea of cause is one with 
which every mind is familiar. It is not easy, however, to 
explain precisely what we mean by it, nor to fix its limits, 
nor to unfold its origin. 

We mean by this term, I think, as ordinarily employed, 
that on which some consequence depends, that but for which 
some event or phenomenon would not occur. In order to 
affirm that one thing is the cause of another, I must know, 
not merely that they are connected, but that the existence 
of the one depends on that of the other. This is more than 
mere antecedence, however invariable. The approach of a 
storm may be invariably indicated by the changes of the 
barometer. These changes precede the storm, but are not 
the cause of it. 

Origin of the Idea, — Whence do we derive the idea of 
cause ? — a question of some importance, and much discussed. 

Evidently not from sense. I observe, for example, the 
melting of snow before the fire, or wax before the flame of 
a taper. What is it that I see in this case ? Merely tl .e 
Dhenomenon, nothing more. All that sense conveys, all that 
the eye reports, is simply the melting of the one substance 
m the presence and vicinity of the other. I b'ee no cause, nc 



258 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS 

form transmitted from the one to the other, no action of the 
one on the other, but simply the vicinity of the two, and the 
change taking place in one. I infer that the change takes 
place in consequence of the vicinity. I believe it ; and if 
the experiment is often repeated with the same results, I 
cannot doubt that it is so. The idea of causality is, indeed, 
suggested by what I have seen, but is not given by sense 
I have not seen the cause ; that lies hidden, occult, its nature 
wholly unknown, and its very existence known, not by what 
I have actually seen, but by that law of the mind which 
leads me to believe that every event must have a cause, and 
to look for that cause in whatever circumstance is known to 
be invariably connected with the given change or event. 

Constitution of the Mind, — That such is the constitution 
of the mind, such the law of its action, admits of no reason- 
able doubt. No sooner is an event or phenomenon ob- 
served, than we conclude, at once, that it is an effect, and 
begin to inquire the cause. We cannot, by any effort of 
conception, persuade ourselves that there is absolutely nc 
cause. 

Not derived from Sense, — But is not this principle of 
causality derived from experience ? We have already said 
that sense does not give it. I do not see with the eye the 
cause of the melting of the wax, much less does what I see 
contain the general principle, that every event must bave a 
cause. Sense does not give me this. 

WTiether from Co7isciousness. — Still, may it not be a 
matter of experience in another way, given by consciousness^ 
tTiough not by sense. For example, I am conscious of cer- 
tain volitions. These volitions are accompanied with cer. 
tain muscular movements, and these, again, are followed by 
certain sensible effects upon surrounding objects. These 
changes produced on objects without are directly con- 
nected thus with my own mental states and changes, with 
the volitions of which I am directly conscious. Given, the 
volition on my part, with the corresponding muscular effort, 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY. 259 

and the external change is produced. I never observe it 
taking place without such preceding volition. T learn to 
regard my wiA as the cause^ and the external change as the 
effect, I observe that it is in the power of others to produce 
changes in like manner. Thus I obtain the general idea ot 
cause. It is given by consciousness and experience. 

Notion of Causality not thus derived, — It is to tl^ia 
source that a very able and ingenious French philosopher 
would attribute our first idea of cause. I refer to Maine de 
Biran. I should agree with M. de Biran, that consciousness 
of our own voluntary efibrtsi, and of the effects thus pro- 
duced, may give us our first notion of cause. But it does 
not give us the law of causality. It extends to a given in- 
stance only, explains that, explains nothing further than that, 
cannot go beyond. I am conscious that in this given in- 
stance I have set in operation a train of antecedents and 
sequences which results in the given effect. I am not con- 
scious that every event has, in like manner, a cause. My 
experience warranto no such assumption. No induction of 
facts and cases can possibly amount to this. Induction can 
multiply and generalize, but cannot stamp on that which is 
merely empirical and contingent, the character of univer- 
sality and necessity. The law of causality, in a word, is to 
be distinguished from any given instance, or number of in- 
stances, of actually observed causation. The latter fall withip 
the range of consciousness and experience, the former 19 
given, if at all, as a law of the mind, a primary truth, an idea 
of reason. 

Rewtarhs of Professor Bowen, — As Professor Bowen 
has well observed, ^' The maxim, ' JEoery event must have a 
cause^^ is not, like the so-called laws of nature, a mere in- 
duction founded on experience, and holding good only until 
an instance is discovered to the contrary ; it is a necessary 
and immutable truth. It is not derived from observation of 
natural phenomena, but is super-imposed upon such observa- 
tiop by a necessity of the human intellect. It is not made 



260 TRUTHS Al!j D (CONCEPTIONS 

known through the senses; and its falsity, under any circum- 
stances, is not possible, is not even conceivable. The cauf^e 
to which it points us, is not to be found in nature. The 
mere physicist, after vainly searching, ever since the world 
began, for a single instance of it, has, at length, abandoned 
the attempt as hopeless, and now confirm es himself to the 
mere description of natural phenomena. The true cause of 
these phenomena must be sought for in the realm, not of 
matter^ but of mind?'^ 

What constitutes Cause, — In this last remark, the authoi 
quoted touches upon a question of no little moment. What 
constitutes a cause ? We cannot here enter into the discus- 
sion of this question. It is suiEcient to remark, that in the 
ordinary use of the word, as denoting that, but for which a 
given result will not be, many things beside mind are in- 
eluded as causes. A hammer, or some like instrument, is 
essential to the driving of a nail. The hammer may be 
called the cause of the nail being driven ; the blow struck 
by means of the hammer may also be so designated. More 
properly, the arm which gave the blow, and, more correctly 
still, the mind which willed the movement of the arm, and 
not the consequent blow of the hammer, may be said to be the 
oause. If we seek for ultimate and efficient causes, we must, 
doubtless, come back to the realm of mind. It is mind that 
IS, in every case, the first mover, the originator of any effect, 
and it may, therefore, be called the true and prime cause, 
the cause of causes. 

History of the Doctrine. — Aristotle^ s View, — The his- 
tory of the doctrine of causality presents a number of 
widely different theories, a brief outline of which is all that 
we can here give. The most ancient division and classifica- 
tion of causes is that of Aristotle, which is based on the fol 
lowing analysis : Every work brought to completion im* 
plies four things : an agent by whom it is done, an element 
or material of which it is wrought, a plan or idea according 
to which it is fashioned, and an and for which it is produced 



FURNISHED BY THIS FACULTY 2dl 

Tims, to the production of a statue there must be a statu 
ary, a block of marble, a plan in the mind of the artist, and 
a motive for tl e execution of the work. The first of these 
is termed the efficient cause, the second the material cause, 
the third the for7nal^ and the fourth the final cause. This 
classification was universally adopted by the scholastic phi- 
losophers, and, to some extent, is still prevalent. We still 
speak of efficient and oi final causes. 

Locke'' s Derivation of Cause. — With regard to the ori- 
gin of the idea of cause, there has been the greatest diver- 
sity of opinion. Locke derives it from sense ; so do the phi- 
losophers of the sensationalist school. We perceive bodies 
modifying each other, and hence the notion of causality. 

TJieory of Hume and of Brown, — Hume denies the exist- 
ence of what we call cause, or power of one object over an- 
other. He resolves it into succession or sequence of objects 
in regular order, and consequent association of them in our 
thoughts. Essentially the same is the theory of Brown, 
who resolves cause and eifect into simple antecedence and 
sequence, beyond which we know nothing, and can aflirm 
nothing. 

Theory of Leibnitz. — The theory of Leibnitz verges 
upon the opposite extreme, and assigns the element of 
power or causal efficiency to every form of existence ; ever) 
substance is a force, a cause, in itself. 

Of Kant. — Kant and his school make cause a merelj 
subjective notion, a law of the understanding, which it ini 
presses upon outward things, a condition of our thought 
We observe external phenomena, and, according to this la\^ 
of our intelligence, are under the necessity of arranging 
them as cause and effect ; but we do not know that, mde 
pendent of our conception, there exists in reality any thing 
corresponding to this idea. The tendency of this theory, as 
well as that of Hume and Brown, to a thorough-going skep 
ticism, is obvious at a glance. The theory of Maine de BiraD 
has been already noticed. 



262 TRUTHS AND CONCEPTIONS, ETC. 

V. The Idea of the BEAunruL, and of Right. 

These Ideas Intuitive. — Among the primary ideas awak- 
ened ill the mind by the faculty of original or intuitive 
conception, ideas of reason, as some writers would prefer to 
call them, must be included the notion of the beautiful^ and 
also that oi right — ideas more important in themselves, and 
in their bearing on human happiness, than almost any others 
which the mind entertains. That these ideas are to be 
traced, ultimately, to the originative or intuitive faculty, 
there can be little doubt. They are simple and primary 
ideas. They have the characteristics of universality and 
necessity. They are awakened intuitively and instantane- 
ously in the mind, when the appropriate occasion is pre- 
sented by sense. There are certain objects in nature and 
art, which, so soon as perceived, strike us as beautifuL 
There are certain traits of character and courses of conduct, 
which, so soon as observed, strike us as morally right and 
wi'ong. The ideas of the beautiful and the right are thug 
awakened in the mind on the perception of the correspondr 
ing objects. 

Tilings to he considered respecting them. — Viewed aa 
notions of the intuitive faculty, or original conceptions, it 
would be in place to consider more particularly the circura- 
stances under which each of these ideas originates, and the 
characteristics of each ; also what constitutes^ in either case, 
the object, what constitutes the beautiful and the right. 

These Topics reserved for separate Discussion, — These 
matters deserve a wider and fuller discussion, however, than 
would here be in place. The ideas under consideration are 
to be viewed, not merely as conceptions of the reason or 
mtuition, but as constituting the material of two distinct 
and important departments of mental activity, two distinct 
classes of judgments, viz., the o'.sthetic and the moral. The 
conceptions of the beautiful and the right, furnished by tlie 
originative or intuitive power of the mind, constitute the 



CONCEPTIOl^ OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 263 

material and basis on which the reflective power works, and 
as thus employed, the mental activity assumes the form, and 
is known under the familiar names of taste and conscience^ or, 
as we may term them, the aesthetic and moral faculties. As 
such, we reserve them for distinct consideration in the fol- 
lowmg pages, bearing in mind, as we proceed, that these 
:aculties, so called, are not properly new powers of the 
oiind, but merely forms of the reflective faculty, as exer 
cised upon this particular class of ideas. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE CONCEPTION AND COGNIZANCE OF THE BEALTIFUL. 

§ I. — COXCEPTIOX OF THE BeAUTIFCTL. 

The Science icJiich treats of this, — The investigation of 
this topic brings us upon the domain of a science as yet 
comparatively new, and which, in fact, has scarcely yet as- 
sumed its place among the philosophic sciences — ^sthetic^s^ 
the science of the beautiful. 

Difficulty of defining. — What, then, is the beautiful? — 
A question that meets us at the threshold, and that has re- 
ceived, from diflerent sources, answers almost as many and 
diverse as the writers tliat have undertaken its discussion. 
It is easy to specify instances of the beautiful without num- 
ber, and of endless variety ; but that is not defining it. On 
the contrary, it is only increasing the difiiculty ; for, whero 
so many things are beautiful, and so diverse from each 
other, how aro we to decide what is that one property which 
they all have in common, viz., beauty ? The difliculty is tc 
fix upon any one quality or attribute that shall pertain alike 
to all the objects that seem to us beautiful. A tis^fure of 
speech, a statue, a star, au air from an opera, all strike us r,s 



264 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

beautiful, all awaken in us the emotion which beauty alone 
can excite. But what have they in common ? It were easy 
to lix upon something in the case of the statue, or of the 
star, which should account, perhaps, for the pleasure those 
objects afford us ; but the same thing might not apply to 
the figure of speech, or to the musical air. It would seem 
almost hopeless to attempt the solution of the problem in 
this method. And yet there must he^ it would seem, some 
principle or attribute in which these various objects that we 
call beautiful agree, which is the secret and substance of 
their beauty, and the cause of that uniform effect ^^hich 
they all produce upon us. Philosoj)hers have accordingly 
proposed various solutions of the problem, some fixing upon 
one thing, some upon another ; and it may be instructive to 
glance at some of these definitions. 

Some m^ake it a Sensation, — Of those who have under- 
taken to define what beauty is, there are some who make it 
a mere feeling or sensation of the mind, and not an objec- 
tive reality of any sort. It is not this, that, or the other 
quality of the external object, but simply a subjective emo- 
tion. It lies within us, and not without. Thus, Sir George 
Mackenzie describes it as " a certain degree of a certain 
species of pleasurable effect impressed on the mind." So 
also Grohman, Professor of Philosophy at Hamburg, in his 
treatise on aesthetic as science, defines the beautiful to be 
" the infinite consciousness of the reason as feeling y As 
the true is the activity of reason at work as intellect or 
knowledge, and as the good is its province when it appears 
as will^ so the beautiful is its activity in the domain of se7isi~ 
bility. Brown, Upham, and others, among English and 
American writers, frequently speak of the emotion of beauty, 
as if beauty itself were an emotion. 

Others an Association, — Closely agreeing with this class 
of writers, and hardly to be distinguished from it, is that 
which makes beauty consist in certain associations of idea 
and feeling with the object contemplated. Tliis is the fa- 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL 265 

vorite doctrine with the Scotch metaphysicians. Thus Lord 
Jeffrey, who has written with great clearness and force on 
this subject, regards beauty as dependent entirely on associ- 
ation, " the reflection of our own inward sensations." It is 
not, according to this view, a quality of the object external, 
but only a feeling in our own minds. Its seat is within and 
not without. 

Theory that Beauty consists in Expression. — Of the 
game general class, also, are those who, with Alison, Reid, 
and Cousin, regard beauty as the sign or expression of 
some quality fitted to awaken pleasing emotions in us. 
Nothing is beautiful, say these writers, which is not thus ex- 
pressive of some mental or moral quality or attribute. It is 
not an original and independent quality of any peculiar forms 
or colors, says Alison, for then we should have a definite 
rule for the creation of beauty. It Ues ultimately in the 
mind, not in matter, and matter becomes beautiful only as 
it becomes, by analogy or association, suggestive of mental 
qualities. The same is substantially the ancient Platonic 
view. Kant, also, followed in the main by Schiller and 
Fichte, takes the subjective view, and makes beauty a mere 
play of the imagination. 

All these Theories make it sul^ective, — Whether we re 
gard beauty, then, as a mere emotion, or as an association of 
thought and feeling with the external object, or as the sign 
and expression of mental qualities, in either case we make it 
ultimately subjective, and deny its external objective reality 

IHfferent Forms of the objective Theory. — Of those who 
take the opposite view, some seek for the hidden principle 
of beauty in novelty ; others, as Galen and Marmontel, in 
utility / others, as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hogarth, in the 
principle of unity in vaHety ; others, in that of order and 
fvroportion^ as Aristotle, Augustine, Crousez. 

All these writers, while they admit the existence of beauty 
m the external object, make it to consist in some quality or 
conformation of matter, as such. 

12 



^66 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

The spiritual TTieory, -—There is still another theory of 
the beautiful, which, while admitting its external objective 
reality, seeks to divest it of that material nature in which 
the writers last named present it, and searches for its es- 
sence among principles ethereal and spiritual. According to 
this view beauty is the spiritual life in its immediate seTh' 
sihle manifestation / the hidden, invisible principle — spirit 
in distinction from matter, animating, manifesting itself tn, 
looking out through, the material form. It is not matter ag 
such, it is not spirit as such, much less a mere mental quality 
or mental feeling ; it is the expression of the invisible and 
spiritual under sensible material forms. This view was first 
fully developed by Schelling and Hegel, and is adopted, in 
the main, by Jouffroy in his Cours d'Esthetique, by Dr. Au- 
gust Ruhlert, of the university of Breslau, in his able system 
of aesthetics, and by many other philosophical writers of dis- 
tinction in Europe. 

Questions for Consideration, — - The following questions 
^ow out of these various and conflicting definitions, as 
presenting the real points at issue, and, as such, requiring 
investigation. 

I. Is beauty something objective, or merely subjective and 
emotional ? 

II. If the former, then what is it in the object that con 
stitutes its beauty ? 

I. Question stated. — Is beauty merely subjective, an 
emotion of our own minds, or is it a quality of objects;? 
When we speak, e, ^., of the beauty of a landscape, or of a 
painting, do we mean merely a certain excitement of cm 
sensitive nature, a certain feeling awakened by the object, 
or do we mean some quality or property belonging to that 
object? If the latter, then are we correct in attributing 
any such quality to the object ? 

Emotion admitted. — Unquestionably, certain pleasing 
emotions are awakened in the mind in view of certain objecta 
which we terra beautiful ; unquestionably those objects ar^ 



CONCEPTIO:.^ OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 267 

the cause or occasion of such emotions ; they have, undei 
favorable circumstances, the power of producing them; un- 
questionably they have this power by virtue, moreover, of 
Bome quality or property pe^^taining to them. All this will 
be admitted by those who deny the objective reahty of 
beauty. The question is not, whether there is in the object 
any quality which is the occasion or cause of our emotion, 
but whether the term beauty is properly the name of that 
cause, or of the emotion it produces. 

Beauty not an Emotion, — The question would seem a 
very plain one if submitted to common sense. It would 
geem strange that any one should deliberately and intelli- 
gently take the position that beauty and sublimity are merely 
emotions of our minds, and not qualities of objects : when 
we hear men speaking in this way, we are half inclined 
to suspect that we misunderstand them, or that they mis- 
understand themselves. I look upon a gorgeous sunset, and 
call it beautiful. What is it that is beautiful ? That sky 
that cloud, that coloring, those tints that fade into each other 
and change even as I behold them, those lines of fire that lie 
in brilliant relief upon the darker background, as if some 
radiant angel had thrown aside his robe of Ught as he flew, 
or had left his smile upon the cloud as he passed through 
the golden gates of Hesperus, these, these, are beautiful ; 
there lies the beauty, and surely not in me, the beholder. 
An emotion Is in my mind, but that emotion is not beauty ; 
it is simple admiration^ i, 6., wonder and delight. There is 
no such emotion as beauty, common as is the ambiguous ex* 
pression " emotion of beauty." There are emotions of ft^ar, 
hope, joy, sorrow, and the like, and these emotions I ex- 
perience ; I know what they mean ; but I am not conscious 
of having ever experienced an emotion of beauty^ though I 
have often been filled with wonder and delight at the sight 
of the beautiful in nature or art. When I experience an 
emotion of fear, of hope, of joy, or of sorrow, what is it that 
is joyful or sorrowful, hopeful or fearful ? My mind, of 



268 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

course, that is, I, myself. The object that occasions the 
emotion on my part, is in no other sense fearful or joyful 
than as it is the occasion of my being so. If, in like manner, 
beauty is an emotion, and I experience that emotion, it is, of 
course, my mind that is beautiful, and not the object con 
templated. It is I, myself, that am beautiful, not the sun 
set, the painting, the landscape, or any thing of that sort, 
whatever. These things are merely the occasion of my 
being beautiful. Could any doctrine be more consoling 
to those who are conscious of any serious deficiency on the 
score of personal attractions ! Can any thing be more ab 
surd ? 

The common View correct. — I beg leave to take the com 
mon-sense view of this question, which I cannot but think is, 
in the present instance, the most correct, and stiU to think 
and speak of the beauty of objects^ and not of our own minds. 
Such is certainly the ordinary acceptation and use of the term, 
nor can any reason be shown why, in strictest philosophy, 
we should depart from it. There is no need of applying the 
term to denote the emotion awakened in the mind, for that 
emotion is not, in itself, either a new or a nameless one, but 
simply that mingled feeling of wonder and delight which we 
call admiration, and which passes, it may be, into love. To 
make beauty itself an emotion, is to be guilty of a double 
absurdity. It is to leave the quality of the object which 
gives rise to the emotion altogether without a name, and 
bestow that name where it is not needed, on that which has 
already a name of its own. 

Beauty still objective^ though reflected from the Mind, — 
If to this it be replied, that the beauty which we admire 
and which seems to be a property of the external object, is, 
nevertheless, of internal origin, being merely a transfer to 
the object, and association with it, of certain thoughts and 
feelings of o\ir own minds, a reflection of our own conscious- 
ness gilding and lighting up the objects around us, which 
objects are then viewed by us as having a light and beauty 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 2(19 

of their own, I answer, that even on this supposition, the 
external object, as thus illumined, has the power of awak- 
ening the pleasing emotion within us, and that power is its 
beauty, a propert}^ or quality of the object still, although 
borrowed originally from the mind ; just as the moon, though 
it give but a reflected light, still shines, and with a beauty 
of its own.| So long as those thoughts and feelings lay hid- 
den in the mind, untransferred, unassociated with the exter- 
nal object, they were not beauty. Not until the object is 
invested with them, and they have become a property of 
that object, do they assume, to the mental eye, the quality 
of beauty. So, then, beauty is even still an objective reality, 
Bomething that lies without us, and not within us. 

The Power of expressing an objective Quality^ likewise, — 
In like manner, if it be contended that beauty is only the 
sign and expression of mental qualities, I reply, that power 
of signifying or expressing is certainly a property of the ob- 
ject, and that property is its beauty, and is certainly a thing 
objective, and not a mere emotion. 

All Beauty not Heflectionynor Exjpression, — I am far from 
conceding, however, that all beauty is either the reflection 
or expression of what passes within the mind. There are 
objects which no play of the fancy, no transfer or association 
of the mental states, can ever render beautiful ; while, on 
the other hand, there are others which require no such asso- 
ciation, but of themselves shine forth upon us with their own 
clear and lustrous beauty. Suppose a child of lively sensi- 
bility, and with that true love of the beautiful, wherever 
discerned, which is one of the finest traits of the child's na- 
ture, to look for the first time upon the broad expanse of the 
ocean ; it lies spread out before him a new and sudden reve- 
lation of beauty ; its extent of surface, unbroken by the 
petty lines and boundaries that divide and maik off the landa 
upon the shore ; its wonderful deep blue, a color he has seen 
hitherto only in the firmament above him, and not there as 
hero — that deep blue relieved by the white sails, that, like 



270 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIEtJL. 

birds of snowy wing, flit across its peaceful bosom, or lie 
motionless in the morning light on its calm expanse; its 
peculiar convexity of surface, as it stretches far out to the 
horizon, and lifts up its broad shoulders against the sky ; — 
these things he beholds for the first time, they are associated 
with nothing in his past experience; he has never seen^ 
never dreamed of such a vision ; it is not the reflection of 
his own thoughts or fancies ; but it is, nevertheless, to him 
a scene of rare and wondrous beauty, the recollection and 
first impression of which shall haunt him while he lives. If, 
in after life, he came to philosophize upon the matter, it 
would be difficult to convince him that what he thus ad- 
mired was but the play of his own imagination, the transfer 
of his own mental state, the association of his own thought 
and feeling with the object before him; in a word, that the 
beauty which so charmed him lay not at all in the object 
contemplated, but only in his own mind. 

A further Question, — That the beauty which we per- 
ceive is a quality of objects, and not merely a subjective 
emotion, that there is in the object something which, call it 
what we will, is the producing cause of the emotion in us, 
and that this objective cause, whatever it be, is, in the proper 
use of terms, to be recognized ag beauty, this we have now 
sufficiently discussed. Admitting, however, these positions, 
the question may still arise, whether that which we call 
beauty in objects has, after all, an absolute existence, inde- 
pendent of the mind that is impressed by it ? The beauty 
that I admire in yonder landscape, or in the wild fiower that 
blooms at my feet, is, indeed, the beauty of the landscape 
or the flower, and not of my mind ; it pertains to, and dwells 
in, the object, and not in me ; but dwells it there independ- 
ently of me, the observer, and when I do not behold it ? If 
there were no intelligent, observing mind, to behold and feel 
that beauty, would the object still be beautiful, even as now? 
This admits of question. Is the beauty a fixed, absolute 
quality, inherent in the object as such, and per ^e, or is it 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 271 

somethiDg springing out of the relation between the mind 
of the observer and the object observed. 

No Evidence of its Existence except its Effect, — That it 
is relative, and not absolute, may be argued from the fact 
that we have no evidence of any such quality or cause, save 
as in operation, save as producing effects in us ; and as we 
could never have inferred the existence of the cause, had it 
not been for the effect produced, so we have no reason to 
suppose its existence Avhen and where it does not manifest 
itself in operation, that is to say, when and where it is not 
observed. As the spark from the smitten steel is not strictly 
to be regarded as itself a property of the steel, nor yet of 
the flint, but as a relative phenomenon arising from the col- 
lision of the two, so beauty, it may be said, dwells not abso- 
lutely in the object per se^ nor yet in the intelligent subject, 
but is a phenomenon resulting from the relation of the 
two. 

Further Argument from diversity of Effects, — The 
same may be argued from the diversity of the effects pro- 
duced. If beauty is a fixed, absolute quality of objects, it 
may be said, then the effects ought to be uniformly the 
same ; whereas there is, in fact, no such uniformity, no stand- 
ard of beauty, none of taste, but wha^ seems to one man ex- 
ceedingly fine, excites only the aversion and disgust of an* 
other, and even the same person is at different times differ- 
ently affected by the same object. Hence it may be inferred 
that the beauty is merely a relation between the mind and 
the object contemplated, varying as the mind varies. 

Reply to the first Argument, — To these arguments I 
reply, in the first place, that it is not necessary that a cause 
should be in actual operation, under our immediate eye, in 
order that we should conclude its independent and constant 
existence. If, whenever the occasion returns, the effects 
are observed, \* e conclude that the cause exists per se^ and 
not merely in relation to us. Otherwise we could never be 
lieve the absolute existence of any thing, but should, with 



272 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

Berkjey and Hume, call in question the existence of mattei 
itsell, save as phenomenal and relative to our senses. The 
same argument that makes the beauty of a rose relativ<=» 
merely to the observer, makes the rose itself merely a rela- 
tive existence. How do I know that it exists ? I see it, 
feel it, smell it ; it lies upon my table ; it affects my senses. 
I turn awav now. I leave the room. How do I kn^w now 
that the rose exists ? It no longer affects my senses ; the 
cause no longer operates ; the effect is no longer produced, 
I have just as much reason to say it no longer exists, as to 
say it is no longer beautiful. 

Reply to the second Argument, — To the argument from 
the diversity of effect, I reply, that admitting the fact to 
be as stated, viz., that the same object is differently regarded 
by different minds, the diversity may arise from either of 
two sources. The want of uniformity may lie in the cause, 
or it may lie in the minds affected by it. The exciting cause 
may vary, and the effects produced by it will then be di- 
verse ; or the minds on which it operates may differ, and in 
that case, also, the effects will be diverse. We are not to 
conclude, then, from diversity of effect that the cause is not 
uniform. A beautiful object, it is true, affects different ob- 
servers differently, but the reason of the diversity may be 
in them and not in the object. 

What then is the fact ? Are the minds of all observers 
equally susceptible of impression from the beautiful ? By 
no means. They differ in education, habit of thought, cul- 
ture, taste, native sensibility, and many other things. 
Hardly two minds can be found that are not diverse in 
these respects. Ought we then to expect absolute uniform 
ity of effect ? 

N^ot to be conceded that there is no Agreement, - It is by 
no means tc be conceded, however, that t'lere is no such 
thing as a standard of beauty or of taste, no general agree- 
ment among men as to what is or is not beautiful, no gen- 
eral agreement as to the emotions produced* There is such 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 273 

Agreement in both respects. Within certain limits it is uni 
form and complete.. Certain aspects of nature, and certain 
works of art, are, in all ages, and by all men, regarded as 
beautiful. The Apollo Belvidere, and the Venus of the 
Capitol, are to us what they were to the ancients ; the 
perfection of the beautiful. The great work of Raphael, 
scarcely finished at his death, the last touches still fresh from 
his hand — that work which, as it hung above his biei, 
drew tears from all eyes, and filled with admiration all 
hearts — • isf still the wonder and admiration of men. And so 
it will be in centuries to come. And so of the emotions 
produced by the contemplation of the beautiful. Making 
due allowance for habits of association, mental culture, and 
differences of native sensibility, we shall find men affected 
much in the same way by the beautiful in nature or art 
The men of the same class and condition as to these matters 

— the peasant of one age or country, and the peasant of an- 
other, the philosopher of one time, and of another, the 
wealthy, uneducated citizen, and the fashionable fool, of one 
period and nation, and of another — experience much the 
same effects in view of one and the same object. The same 
general laws, too, preside over and regulate the different 
arts which have relation to the beautiful, in all ages of the 
world. 

Consequences of the Theory that beauty is merely relative. 

— If beauty be not absolute but relative only, it follows, 1, 
That, if there were no observers of nature or art, neither 
would be longer beautiful. 2. If, for any reason any thing 
is for the time unseen, as, e.g,^ a pearl in the sea, a precious 
(Stone in the mine, or a rich jewel in the casket, it has no 
beauty so long as it is there and thus. 3. As minds vary in 
susceptibility of impression, the same thing is beautiful to 
one person and not to another ; at one time and not at an- 
other ; nay, at one and the same moment it is both beautiful 
and not beautiful, according as the miuds of the observers 
vary I cannot say with truth, that the Mosaics of St. Peter's, 



274 CONCEPTION OF THE BEALTIFUL. 

or the great diamond of the East, are, at this moment, really 
beautiful, because I do not know who, or whether any one, 
may, at this moment, be looking at them. 

Intimate delation 'between the Mind and the Object. — ^While 
I maintain, however, the existence of beauty as an absolute 
and independent quality of objects, and not merely as rela- 
tive to the mind that perceives and enjoys it, I would, 
by no means, overlook the very intimate relation which 
subsists, in the present case, between the perceiving mind 
and the object perceived. Beauty makes its appeal primarily 
to the senses. It pleases and charms us, because we are en- 
dowed with senses and a nature fitted to receive pleasure 
from such objects. In the adaptation of our physical and 
mental constitution to the order and constitution of material 
things as they exist without, lies the secret of that power 
which the beautiful exerts over us. 

Might have been otherwise constituted, — We might have 
been so constituted, doubtless, that the most beautiful ob- 
jects should have been disgusting, rather than pleasing: the 
violet should have seemed an ugly thing, and the sweetest 
strains of music harsh and discordant. There are disordered 
senses, and disordered minds, to which, even now, those 
things, which we call beautiful, may so appear. For that 
adaptation of our sensitive nature to external objects, and 
of these objects to our sensitive nature, by virtue of which, 
the percipient mind recognizes and feels the beauty of the 
object perceived, and takes delight in it, we are indebted 
wholly to the wisdom and benevolence of the great Cre 
ator. 

The Doctrine maintained, — Still, given,, the present con- 
stitution and mutual adaptation of mind and matter, and we 
affirm the independent existence of the beautiful as an ob- 
ject per sCy and not merely as an afiection of the percipient 
mind. The perception and enjoyment of the beauty are 
subjective^, relative, dependent ; the beauty itself not so. 

2'he second Question, — If beauty be, then, as we find re^ 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 276 

«on to beliave, not wholly a subjective affair, but a quality 
or property of external objects, the question now arises, 

II. What is it in the object, that constitutes its beauty? 

Tlieory of Novelty. — And first, is it the novelty of the 
thing ? Is the novel the beautiful ? Doubtless, novelty pleases 
us. It has this in common with the beautiful. Yet some 
things that are novel, are by no means beautiful. A mill 
for grinding corn is a great curiosity to one who has never 
seen such a machine before, but it might not strike him as 
particularly beautiful. 

Every thing, when first beheld, is novel ; but every thing 
IS not beautiful. Let us look more closely at the element of 
novelty. That is novel which is new to us merely, which 
appears to us for the first time. It may be new to the in- 
tellect, a new idea, or to the sensibility, a new feeling, or to 
the will, a new act. As a new idea it satisfies our curiosity, 
as a new feeling it developes our nature, as a new vohtion 
It enlarges the sphere of our activity. In these respects, and 
for these reasons, novelty pleases, but in all this we discover 
no resemblance to the beautiful. 

Novelty heightens Seauty, — It is not to be denied that 
novelty, in many cases, heightens the beauty of an object. 
By familiarity, we become, in a measure, insensible to the 
charms of that which, as first beheld, filled us with delight. 
The sensibility receives no further excitement from that 
to which it has become accustomed. To enjoy mountain 
scenery most highly, one must not always dwell among the 
mountains. To enjoy Niagara most highly, one must not 
ive in the sight of it all his days. But beauty, and the en- 
joyment of the beautiful, are surely different things, and 
while novelty is accessory to the full effect of the beautiful 
on our minds, and even indispensable to it, it is not, itself, the 
element of beauty, not the ground and substance of it. 

Not always pleasing , — Jouffroy even denies that novelty 
is always pleasing. Some things, he contends, displeaise us, 
Bimply because they are new. We become accustomed tc 



276 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

them, and our dislike ceases. Thus it is, to some extent, 
with difference of color in the races. 

Theory of the Useful, — Is, then, the useful the beautiful f 
This theory next claims our attention. The foundation of 
the emotions awakened in us by the beautiful in nature or 
art, is the perception of utility. We perceive in the object 
a fitness to conduce, in some way, to our welfare, to serve, in 
some way, our purposes, and for this reason, we are pleased 
The utility is the beauty. 

The inost useful ^ not the most beautiful. — That the 
beauty of an object may, in our perception, be heightened 
by the discovery of its fitness to produce some desirable 
end, or rather, that this may add somewhat to the pleasure 
we feel in view of the object, is quite possible ; that this is 
the main element and grand secret, either of that emotion 
on our part, or of the beauty which gives rise to it, is not 
possible. It is sufiicient to say, that, if this were so, the 
most useful things ought, of course, to be the most beautiful. 
Is this the case ? A stream of water conducted along a ship 
canal is more useful than the same stream tumbling over the 
rapids, or plunging over a perpendicular precipice. Is it 
also more beautiful ? A swine's snout, to use a homely but 
forcible illustration of Burke, is admirably fitted to serve the 
purpose for which it was intended ; useful exceedingly for 
rooting and grubbing, but not, on the whole, very beau- 
tiful. 

Dissimilarity of the two, — Indeed, few things can bt' 
more unlike, in their effect upon the mind, in the nature oi 
the emotions they excite, than the useful and the beautiful. 
This has been well shown by Jouffroy in his analysis of the 
beautiful. Kant has also clearly pointed out the same thing 
Both, please us, but not in the same way, not for the same 
reason. We love the one for its advantage to us, the other 
for its own sake. The one is a purely selfish, the other a 
purely disinterested love, a noble, elevated emotion. The 
two are heaven-wide asunder. The glorious sunset is of no 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 277 

earthly use to us, otherwise than mere beauty and pleasure 
are in themselves of use. The gorgeous spectacle becomes 
at oace degraded in our own estimation by the very ques- 
tion of its possible utility. We love it not for the benefit it 
-lonfers, the use we can make of it, but for its own sake, its 
own sweet beauty, because it is what it is. There it lies, 
pencilled on the clouds, evanescent, momentarily changing^ 
There it is, afar off. You cannot reach it, cannot com 
mand its stay, have no wish to appropriate it to your* 
selti no desire to turn it to your own account, or reap 
any benefit fi^om it, other than the mere enjoyment ; still 
you admire it, still it is beautiful to you. Of what use to 
the beholder is the ruddy glow and flash of sunrise on the 
Alpine summits as seen from the Rhigi or Mount Blanc ? 
Of what use, in fact, is beauty in any case, other than as it 
may be the means of refining the taste, and elevating the 
mind? That it has this advantage we are free to admit ; and 
it is certainly one of the noblest uses to which any thing can 
be made subservient ; but surely this cannot be what is 
meant when we are told that beauty consists in utility, foi 
this would be simply affirming that the cause consists in the 
effect produced. Beauty refines and elevates the mind, is a 
means of aesthetic and moral culture ; as such it is of use, and 
in that use lies the secret and the subtle essence of beauty 
itself, la other words, a given cause produces a given effect, 
and that effect constitutes the cause ! \ 

The utility of JBeauty an incidental Circumstance, — The 
truth is, that while the beautiful does elevate and ennoble the 
mind, and thus furnish the nieans of the highe^st aesthetic 
and moral culture, this advantage is wholly incidental to the 
existence of beauty, not even a necessary or invariable 
effect, much less the constituting element. This is not the 
reason why we admire the beautiful. It does not enter into 
our thoughts at the moment. \ As on the summit of Rliigi, I 
watch the play of the first rosy light on the snowy peaks 
that lift themselves in stately grandeur along the opposite 



278 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

horizon, I am not thinking, at that moment, of the effect 
produced on my own mind, by the spectacle before me ; 1 
am wholly absorbed in the magnificence of the scene itself. 
"•^t is beautiful, not because it is useful, not because it elevates 
my mind, and cultivates my taste, and contributes, in various 
ways, to my development, but it produces these effects be- 
cause it is beautiful. The very thought of the useful is al- 
most enough, in such cases, to extinguish the sentiment of 
the beautiful. 

Beauty cannot he appropriated, — That only is useful 
which can be appropriated,^ and turned to account. But 
the beautiful, in its very nature, cannot be appropriated or 
possessed. You may appropriate the picture, the statue, 
the mountain, the waterfall, but not their beauty. These 
do not belong to you, and never can. They are the property 
of every beholder. Hence, as Jouffroy has well observed, 
the possession of a beautiful object never fully satisfies. 
The beauty is ideal, and cannot be possessed. It is an ethe- 
real spirit that floats away as a silver cloud, ever near, 
yet ever beyond your grasp. It is a bow, spanning the blue 
arch, many-colored, wonderful ; yonder, just yonder, is its 
base, where the rosy light seems to hover over the wood, 
and touch gently the earth ; but you cannot, by any flight 
or speed of travel, come up with it. It is here, there, every- 
where, except where you are. It is given you to behold, 
not to possess it. 

Theory of Unity in Variety, — Evidently we must seek 
elsewhere than in utility the dwelling-place of beauty. T!ie 
secret of her tabernacle is not there. Let us see, then, if 
unity in variety may not be, as some afiirm, the principle ol 
the beautiful. The intellect demands a general unity, as, 
e. g,^ in a piece of music, a painting, or a play, and is not 
satisfied unless it can perceive such unity. The parts must 
be not only connected but related, and that relation must be 
obvious. At the same time the sensibility demands variety, 
as e g,s of tone and time in the mus'c, of color and shad« 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 279 

in the paintiiig, of expression in both. The same note of a 
musical instrument continuously produced, or the same color 
unvaried in the painting, would be intolerable. The due 
combination of these two principles, unity and variety, say 
these writers, constitutes what we call beauty in an object. 
The waving line of Hogarth may be taken as an illustration 
of this principle. 

Objection to this View, — Without entering fully into the 
discussion of this theory, it may be sufficient to say, that 
while the principle how named does enter, in some degree, 
into our conception of the beautiful, it can hardly be ad- 
mitted as the ground and cause, or even as the chief element, 
of beauty. Not every thing is beautiful which presents 
both unity and variety. Some things, on the other hand, are 
beautiful which lack this combination. Some colors are 
beautiful, taken by themselves, and the same is true of cer- 
tain forms, which, nevertheless, lack the element of variety. 
In the construction of certain mathematical figures, which 
please the eye by their symmetry and exactness, we may 
detect, perhaps, the operation of this principle. On the 
other hand, it will not account for the pleasure we feel when 
the eye rests upon a particular color that is agreeable. A 
bright red pebble, or a bit of stained glass, appears to a 
child very beautiful. It is the color that is the object of his 
admiration. We have simple unity but no variety there, 
On the other hand, in a beautiful sunset we have the great 
est variety, but not unity, other than simply a numerical unity. 

We cannot, on the whole, accept this theory as a com 
plete and satisfactory resolution of the problem of the beau 
tiful, although it is supported by the eminent authority ol 
Cousin, who, while he regards all beauty as ultimately per- 
taining to the spiritual nature, still finds in the principle, now 
under consideration, its chief characteristic so far as it as 
sumes external form. 

Order and Proportion, — Shall we then, with Aristotle, 
Augustine, Andre, and others, ancient and modern, seek the 



280 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

hidden principle of beauty in the elements of order and pro 
portion ? What are order and proportion ? Order is the 
arrangement of the several parts of a composite body. 
Proportion is the relation of the several pares to each other 
in space and time. Not every possible arrangement is order, 
but only that which appears conducive to the end designed, 
and not every possible arrangement of parts is proportion, 
but only that which furthers the end to be accomplished. 
To place the human eye in the back part of the head, the 
limbs remaining as they now are, would be disorder^ for 
motion must in that case, as now, be forward^ while the eye, 
looking backward, could no longer survey the path we tread. 
The limbs of the Arabian steed, designed for swiftness of 
locomotion, bear a proportion to the other parts of the body, 
somewhat different from that which the limbs of the swine, 
designed chiefly for support, and for movements slower, and 
over shorter distances, bear to his general frame. The pro- 
portion of each, however, is perfect as it is. Exchange 
each for each, and they are quite out of proportion. 

Only another Form of the Useful. — Since order and pro* 
portion, then, have always reference to the end proposed to 
be accomplished, we have, in fact, in these elements, onlj 
another form of the useful, which, as we have already seen 
is not the principle of beauty. 

Not always HeautifuL — Accordingly, we find that order 
and proportion do not, in themselves, and when unassociated 
with other elements, invariably strike us as beautiful. The 
leg of the swine is as fine a specimen of order and propor- 
lion as that of the Arab courser, but is not so much admired 
for its beauty. It must be admitted, however, that these 
elements in combination, do with others, enter more or less 
fully into the formation of the beautiful, are intimately asso- 
ciated with its external forms. The absence or violation ct 
these principles would mar the beauty of the object. 

The spiritual Theory, — The only theory of beauty re- 
mainiiig to be noticed is the spiritual theory, which makers 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 281 

beauty consist, not in matter as such, nor in any mere ar- 
rangement of matter in itself considered, but in the mani 
Testation or expression, under these sensible material formn-^ 
of the higher, the hidden spiritual nature^ or element, ap- 
pealing thus to our own spiritual nature, which is thereby 
awakened to sympathy. In the sensible world about us we 
find two elements diverse and distinct each from the other, 
the idea and the form, spirit and matter, the invisible and 
the visible. In objects that are beautiful we find these two 
elements united in such a way, that the one expresses or 
manifests the other, the form expresses the idea, the body 
expresses the spirit,- the visible manifests the invisible, and 
oui own spiritual nature recognizing its like, holds commun- 
ion and sympathy with it as thus expressed. That which 
constitutes the beautiful, then, is this manifestation, under 
sensible forms, and so to our senses, of the higher and spkitual 
principle which is the life and soul of things. 

Relation of the Seautiful to the Ti^e and the Good. — It 
differs from the true iq that the true is not, like the beautiful, 
expressed under sensible forms, but is isolated, pure, abstract, 
not addressed to the senses, but to reason. It differs from 
the good, in that the good always proposes an end to be ac* 
complished, and involves the idea of obligation, while the 
beautiful, on the contrary, proposes no end to be accom 
plished, acknowledges no obligation or necessity, but is 
purely fi^ee and spontaneous. Yet, though differing ia these 
aspects, the good, the true, and the beautiful, are at basis 
essentially the same, even as old Plato taught, differing 
rather in their mode of expression, and the relations which 
ibey sustain to us, than in essence. 

Relation of the Beautiful to the Sublime. — The relation 
of the beautiful to the sublime^ according to this theory, is 
simply this : In the beautiful, the invisible and the visible, 
the finite and the infinite, are harmoniously blended. In the 
sublime, the spiritual element predominates, the harmony ia 
disturbed the sensible is overborne bv the infinite, and oui 



282 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

spirits are agitated by the presence, in an unwonted degree^ 
of the higher element of our own being. Hence, while the 
one pleases, the other awes and subdues us. 

Application of this Theory. — Such, in brief outline, is 
the theory. Let us see now whether it is applicable to the 
different forms of beauty, and whether it furnishes a satis- 
factory explanation and account of them. 

Surveying the different forms of being, we find among 
them different degrees of beauty. Does, then, every thing 
which is beautiful express or manifest, through the medium, 
and, as it were, under the veil, of the material form, the 
presence of the invisible spiritual element? and the more 
beautiful it is, does it so much the more plainly and directly 
manifest this element ? 

The Theory applied to inorganic Forms. — And first, to 
begin with the lowest, how is it with the inanimate, inor- 
ganic, merely chemical forms of matter ? Here we have 
certain lines, certain figures, certain colors, that we call beau- 
tiful. What do they express of the higher or spiritual ele- 
ment of being ? In themselves, and directly, they express 
nothing, perhaps. Yet are they not, after all, suggestive, 
symbolical of an idea and spirit dwelling, not in them, but 
in him who made them, of the Creator's idea and spirit, inar- 
ticulate expressions, mere natural signs, of a higher principle . 
than dwells in these poor forms ? Do they not suggest and 
express to us ideas of grace, elegance, delicacy, and the like ? 
Do we not find ourselves attracted by, and, in a sort, in sym 
pathy with these forms, as thus significant and expressive ? 
Is it not thus that lines, and figures, and mathematical form% 
the regular and sharply cut angles of the crystal, the light 
that flashes on its polished surface, or lies hid in beautiful 
color within it, the order, proportion, and movement, by 
axed laws, of the various forms of matter, appear beautiful 
to us ? For what are order, proportion, regularity, harmony, 
and movement, bj fixed laws, and what are elegance, and 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 283 

grace of outline and figure, but so many signs and expres* 
sions of a higher intelligence ? ^ 

Theory applied to vegetable Forms, — Passing onward 
and upward in the scale of being, taking into view, now, the 
organic forms of vegetable life, do we not find a more 
definite articulate expression of the spiritual and invisible 
under the material form ? The flower thut blooms in our 
path, the sturdy tree that throws out its branches against 
the sky, or droops pensively, as if weighed down by some 
hidden sorrow, address us more directly, speak more inti- 
mately to our spirits, than the mere crystal can do, however 
elegant its form, or definite its outline. They express senti- 
ments, not ideas merely. They respond to the sensibilities, 
they appeal to the inner life of the soul. They are strong 
or weak, timid or bold, joyous or melancholy. It requires 
no vigorous exercise of fancy to attribute to them the sensi- 
bilities which they awaken in us. When in lively commun- 
ion and sympathy with nature, we can hardly resist the 
conviction that the emotions which she calls into play in our 
own bosoms are, somehow, her own emotions also ; that 
under these forms so expressive, so full of meanmg to us, 
there lurks an intelligence, a soul. ,} 

To the animal Kingdomj, — In the animal kingdom, this 
invisible spiritual principle, the energy that lies hidden 
under all forms of animate and organized substance, becomes 
yet more strongly and obviously developed. The approach 
is nearer, and the appeal is more direct, to our own spiritual 
nature. We perceive signs, not to be mistaken, of intellL 
gence and of feeling ; passion betrays itself, love, hate, fear 
the very principles of our own spiritual being, the very im 
age of our own higher nature. Beauty and deformity are 
now more strongly marked than in the lower degrees of the 
scale of being. 

To Man, — In man we reach the his^hest stao:e of animal 
existence with which we are conversant, the highest degiee 
of life, intelligence, soul — the being in whom the spintuaJ 



284 CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

shines forth most clearly through the material veil — and, 
Bhall we not say also, the being most beautiful of all ? Tb<^ 
highest style of beauty to be found in nature pertains to the 
human form, as animated and lighted up by the intelHgence 
within. It is the expression of the soul that constitutes thi 
superior beauty. It is that which looks out at the eye 
which sits in calm majesty on the brow, lurks in the lip 
gmiles on the cheek, is set forth in the chiselled hnes and 
features of the countenance, in the general contour of 
figure and form, and the particular shading and expres- 
sion of the several parts, in the movement, and gesture, 
and tone ; it is this looking out of the invisible spirit that 
dwells within, through the portals of the visible, this 
manifestation of the higher nature, that we admire and 
love ; this constitutes to us the beauty of our species. 
Hence it is that certain features, not in themselves, per- 
haps, particularly attractive, wanting, it may be, in certain 
regularity of outline, or in certain delicacy and softness, are 
still invested with a peculiar charm and radiance of beauty 
from their peculiar expressiveness and animation. The light 
of genius, or the superior glow of sympathy, and a noble 
heart, play upon those plain, and, it may be^ homely features, 
and light them up with a brilliant and regal beauty. Those, 
as every artist knows, are precisely the features most diffi- 
cult to portray. The expression changes with the instant. 
The beauty flashes, and is gone, or gives place to a still 
higher beauty, as the light that plays in fitful corruscationa 
along the northern sky, coming and going, but never still. 

Man not the highest Type of Beauty, — Is then the human 
form the highest expression of the principle of beauty ? It 
can hardly be ; for in man, as in all things on the earth, is 
mingled along with the beauty much that is deformed, with 
the excellence much imperfection. We can conceive forms 
superior to his, faces radiant with a beauty that sin has 
never darkened, nor passion nor sorrow dimmed. We can 
conceive forms of beauty more perfect, purer, brighter^ 



CONCEPTION OF THE BEAUTIFUL 2St 

loftier than any thing that human eye hath seen or human 
ear heard. We conceive them, however, as existing only 
under some sensible form, as manifest in some way to 
Bense, and the beauty with which we invest them is the 
beauty of the spiritual expressing itself in the outward and 
visible. It is the province of imagination to fashion these 
conceptions, and of art to attempt their realization. This, 
the poet, the painter, the sculptor, the architect, the oratoi, 
each in his way, is ever striving to do, to present undei 
sensible forms, the ideal of a more perfect loveliness and ex- 
cellence than the actual world affords. 

This ideal can never be adequately and fully represented. 
The perfection of beauty dwells alone with God. 

Consideration in favor of the Theory now explained, — 
It is in favor of the theory now under consideration, that it 
seems thus more nearly to meet and account for the various 
phenomena of beauty, than any other of those which have 
passed under our review, and that it accounts for them, 
withal, on a principle so simjDle and obvious. The crystal, 
the violet, the graceful spreading elm, the drooping willow, 
the statue, the painting, the musical composition, the grand 
cathedral, whatever in nature, what'ever in art is beautifu]. 
all mean something, all express something, and in this lies 
thdr beauty ; and we are moved by them, because w^e, who 
have a soul, and in whom the spiritual nature predominates, 
can understand and sympathize with that which these forms 
of nature and art, in their semi-articulate w^ay, seem all 
striving t( express. 

The Ideas thus expressed pertain not to Nature hut to the 
divine Mind, — It is not necessary that, with the ancient 
Greeks, we should conceive of nature, as having herself ac 
intelligent soul of these forms as themselves conscious of 
their own meaning and beauty. It is enough that we re 
cognize them as conveying a sentiment and meaning not 
their own, but his who made them, and made them repre 
aentative and expressive of his own beautiful thougljl 



286 COGNIZA.NCE OP THE BEAUTIFUi., 

\Wor(Js are not the only modes of expression. The soul 
speaks more earnestly and eloquently often in signs than in 
wordsi And when God speaks to men, he does it not al- 
ways in the barren forms of human speech, but in the flower 
that he places by my path, in the tree, the mountain, the 
rolling ocean, the azure firmament. These are his words / 
and they are beautiful, and, when he will, they are terrible. 
Happy he who, in all these manifestations, recognizes the 
Toi^e of God. 



§ IL — Cognizance of the Beautiful. 

Heauty an Object of Cognition. — We have treated, in 
the preceding section, of the idea of the beautiful, in itself 
considered. We proceed to investigate the action of the 
mind as cognizant of the beautiful in its actual manifesta- 
tions, whether in nature or art. Beauty, as we have found 
reason to believe, is not a conception merely, existing only 
in the mind, but a quality of certain objects. As such it 
has objective value and existence, and the mind is cognizant 
of it as such, perceives it, observes it, compares it and the 
object to which it pertains with other like and unlike ob- 
jects, judges and decides respecting it. This quality of ob- 
jects makes its appeal, as do all objects of perception, first 
to the senses, and through them to the mind. There is thus 
awakened in the mind, or suggested to it, the original and 
intuitive conception of the beautiful ; there is also, and be- 
side this, the cognizance by the mind of the beautiful as an 
actual and present reality manifest in the object before it 
As it perceives other objects of a like nature, it classes them 
with the preceding, compares them severally, judges of their 
respective merits, their respective degrees and kinds of 
beauty. This discriminating power of the mind, as exer- 
cised upon the various objects of beauty and sublimity, 
whether in nature or art, we may designate })y the genera] 
»ame of taste. 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 287 

Nature of this Power, — There has been much diiFerence 
of opinion as to the piecxse nature of this power, whether 
It is a distinct faculty of the mind, or the simple exercise of 
Rome faculty already known and described, whether it is of 
the nature of intellect, or of emotion, or the combination of 
both. Hence the various definitions of taste which have 
been given by different writers, some regarding it as strictly 
an intellectual faculty, others as an emotion, while the 
greater number regard it as including the action both of 
the intellect in perceiving, and of the sensibility in feeling, 
whatever is beautiful and sublime. 

What has been already said, sufficiently indicates with 
which of "these general views our own most nearly accords. 
We use the term taste to denote the mind's power of cog- 
nizing the beautiful, a power of knowing, of discriminating, 
rather than of feeling, an exercise of judgment and the re- 
flective power, directed to one particular class of objects, 
rather than any distinct faculty of the mind. Feeling is 
doubtless awakened on the perception of the beautiful ; it 
may even precede the judgment by which we decide that 
the object before us is truly beautiful ; but the feeling is not 
itself the perception, or the judgment; is aot itself taste^ 
whatever may be its relation to taste. 

Proposed Investigation. — As this is a matter of some 
importance to a correct psychology, and also of much differ- 
ence of opinion, it seems necessary, for purposes of science, 
to investigate somewhat carefully the nature of this form oi 
mental activity. It is not a matter to be settled by author- 
^^y? by arbitrary definition, or dogmatic assertion. We 
must look at the views and opinions of others, and at the 
reasons for those opinions. 

Definitions, — As preliminary to such investigation, I 
<ihall present some of the definitions of taste, given by the 
more prominent writers, representing each of the leading 
news already indicated. 

Blair defines it " a power of receiving pleasure from the 



288 COQISIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

beauties of nature and art." Montesquieu, a French authoi 
of distinction, defines it '' something which attaches us to 
certam objects by the power of an internal sense or feeling." 
Gerard, author of an Essay on Taste, makes it consist in the 
improvement of the internal senses, viz., sense of novelty, 
sublimity, beauty, imitation, harmony, etc. Accordant witb 
this are the liues of Akenside : 

" What, then, is taste but those internal powers, 
Active and strong, and feelingly alive 
To each fine impulse ?'* 

Nature of these Definitions. — The definitions now given, 
it will be perceived, make taste a matter of sensibility^ of 
m^vQ feeling^ a sensation or sense, a passive faculty of being 
pleased with the beauties of nature and art. 

Another Class of Definitions. — Differing from this, 
others have carefully distinguished between the rational and 
emotional elements, the power of discriminating and the 
power oi feeling^ and have made taste to consist properly 
in the former. Of this class is Brown. M'Dermot also 
takes the same view. This author, in his critical disserta- 
tion on the nature and principles of taste, defines it as the 
poioer of discriminating those qualities of sensible and intel- 
lectual being, which, from the invisible harmony that existn 
between them and our nature, excite in us pleasant emotions. 
The emotion, however, though it may be the parent of taste, 
he would not regard as a constituent element of it. 

Definitions combi7iing both JEleme7its. — The greatei 
Qumber, however, of those who have written on this sub 
jcct, have combined in their definitions of taste both these 
elements, the power of perceiving and the power of feehng. 
So. Burke : " That faculty, or those faculties of the mind 
which are affected with^ or which form a judgment of the 
works of imagination and the elegant arts." Alison : "That 
faculty of the mind by which we perceive and enjoy what>. 
eve? is beautiful or sublime in the works of nature and art " 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 289 

Ueid also makes it consist in " the power of disccrnitig 
und relishing" these objects. Voltaii'e makes the feeling 
quite as essential as the perception. Benard, Professor ot 
PJiilosophy in the College Royal at Rouen, in the excellent 
article on taste, in the Dictionnaire des Sciences Philoso- 
phiques, defines taste as " that faculty of the mind which 
makes us to discern and feel the beauties of nature, and 
whatever is excellent in works of art." It is a compound 
faculty, according to this author, inhabiting at once both 
worlds, that of sense and that of reason. Beauty reveals it- 
self to us only under sensible forms, the faculty which con- 
templates the beautiful, therefore, seizes it only in its sensible 
manifestation. The pure idea, on the other hand, in its 
abstract nature, addresses not the taste but the understand- 
ing ; it appears to us, not as the beautiful, but as the true. 
Taste, then, has to do with sense. Still, says Benard, " the 
essential element which constitutes it, j^ertains to the reason ^ 
it is, in truth, only one of the forms of this sovereign power, 
which takes diflerent names according to the objects which 
it deals with ; reason^ properly speaking, when it employs 
itself in the sphere of speculative truth ; conscience^ when 
it reveals to us truths moral or practical ; taste^ when it ap- 
preciates the beauty and suitableness of objects in the real 
world, or of works of art." 

These three Classes comprehensive, — Other aiUhorities 
and definitions, almost without number, might be added, 
but they Mi essentially under the three classes now speci- 
fied. Which of these views, then, is the correct and true 
one ? is the question now before us. Is taste a matter of 
feeling, or is it an intellectual discernment, or is it both ? 
Evidently we cannot depend on authority for the decision 
of this question, since authorities differ. We must examine 
for ourselves. 

Etymology of the Term, — To some extent the word it- 
self may guide us. Borrowed, as are most if not all words 
expressing mental states and acts, from the sphere of sense, 

13 



290 COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

there was doubtless some reason why this word in partioulai 
was selected to denote the power of the mind now undet 
consideration. Some close analogy, doubtless, was supposed 
to exist between the physical state denoted by this word in 
its primary sense, and the mental faculty to which we refer, 
so that, in seeking for a term by which to designate that in* 
tellectual faculty, none would more readily present itself, af 
appropriate and suggestive of the mental state intended, 
than the one in question. This analogy, whatever it be, 
while it cannot be taken as decisive of the question before 
us, is still an element not to be overlooked by the psycholo- 
gist. What, then, is the analogy ? How comes this word 
— taste — to be used, rather than any other, to denote the 
idea and power now under consideration ? 

Taste as a Sense. — In the domain of sense, certain ob- 
jects brought in contact with the appropriate physical 
organ, affect us as sweet, sour, bitter, etc. This is purely 
an affection of the sensibility, mere feeling. We say the 
thing tastes so and so. The power of distinguishing such 
qualities we call the power or sense of taste. Primarily, 
mere sensation, mere feeling, we transfer the word to denote 
the power of judging by means of that sensation. There 
is, in the first instance, an affection of the organ by the ob- 
ject brought in contact with it, of which affection we are 
cognizant ; then follows an intellectual perception or judg- 
ment that the object thus affecting us, possesses such and 
such qualities, is sweet, sour, bitter, salt, etc.. The sensa- 
tion affords the ground of the judgment. The latter is 
based upon the former. The sensation, the simple feeling, 
affords the means of discriminating, judging, distinguishing, 
and to this latter power or process the word taste, in the 
physical sense, is more frequently appropriated. We say of 
such or such a man, his taste is acute, or his taste is im- 
paired, or dull, etc., meaning his power oi* perceiving and 
distinguishing the various properties of objects which aft tot 
the sense of taste. 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 291 

Analogy of this to the mental Process called Taste, — 
It is easy to perceive, now, the analogy between the physical 
power and process thus described, and the psychological 
faculty under consideration, to which the name primarily 
denoting the former has been transferred. Objects in nature 
and art present themselves to the observation, and awaken 
pleasure as beautiful, or excite disgust as the opposite. A 
mere matter of sensibility, of feeling, this. Presently, how- 
ever, we begin to notice, not the mere feeling of pleasure 
or aversion, but the character of the object that awakens it , 
we discriminate, we attribute to the object such and such 
qualities, take cognizance of it as possessing those qualities. 
This discriminating power, this judgment of the mind that 
the object possesses such properties, we call taste. As, in the 
sphere of sense, the feeling awakened affords the means of 
judging and distinguishing, as to the qualities of the object, 
so here. The beautiful awakens sensation — a vivid feeling 
of pleasure, delight, admiration ; deformity awakens the re- 
verse ; and this feeling enables us to judge of the object, as 
regards the property in question, viz., beauty or deformity, 
whether, and how far, as compared with other objects of the 
mind, it possesses this quality. In either case — the physical 
and the psychological — the process begins with sensation or 
feeling, but passes on at once into the domain of intellect, 
the sphere of understanding or judgment ; and while, in 
either case, the word taste may, without impropriety, be 
used to denote the feeling or susceptibility of impression 
which lies at the foundation of the intellectual process, it is 
more strictly appropriate to the faculty of discriminating 
the objects, and the qualities of objects, which awaken in us 
the given emotions. 

So far as the word itself can guide us, then, it would seem 
to be in the direction now indicated. 

Appeal to Consciousness, — Analogy, however, may mis- 
lead u.s. We must not base a doctrine or decide a question 
in psychology upon the meaning of a single term Upon 



292 COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

observation and consciousness of what actually passes in out 
own minds, in view of the beautiful, we must, after all, rely. 
Let us place ourselves, then, in the presence of the beautiful 
in nature or art, and observe the various menial phenomena 
that present themselves to our consciousness. 

I stand before a statue of Thorwalsden or Canova, The 
spell and inspiration of high art are upon mCc What passes 
now in my mind ? 

The first Element, — First of all, I am conscious of almost 
instant emotion in view of the object, an emotion of pleasure 
and delight. No sooner do my eyes rest upon the chiselled 
form that stands in faultless and wondrous beauty before 
me, than this emotion awakens. It springs into play, as a 
fountain springs out of the earth by its own spontaneous 
energy, or, as the Ught plays on the mountain tops, and 
fluvshes their snowy summits, when the sun rises on the Alps. 
It IS by no volition of mine that this takes place. 

A. second Element, — Along with the emotion, there is 
another thing of which, also, I am conscious. Scarcely have 
my eyes taken in the form and proportions on which they 
rest with delight, scarcely has the first thrill of emotion, 
thus awakened, made itself known to the consciousness, 
when I find myself exclaiming, '^ How beautiful !" The sou] 
says it ; perhaps the lips utter it. If not an oral, it is, at 
least, a mental affirmation. The mind perceives, at a glance, 
the presence of beauty, recognizes its divinity, and pays 
homage at its shrine; not now the blind homage of feeling, 
merely, but the clear-sighted perception of the intellect, the 
sure decision of the understanding affirming, with authority 
' That which thou per cei vest and admirest is beautiful.' This 
is an act of judgment, based, however, on the previous 
awakening of the sensibility. I know, because I feel. 

A third Elemeiit, — In addition to these, there may, or 
may not be, another phase of mental action. I may begin, 
presently, to observe, with a more careful eye, the wort 
before me, and form a critical estimate of it, scan its outline, 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 293 

its several parts, its effect as a whole, ascertain its merits, 
and its defects as a work of art, study its design, its idea, 
and how well it expresses tha^ idea, and fulfills that design. 
I seek to know what it is in the piece that pleases me, and 
why it pleases me. This may, or may not, take place. 
Whether it shall occur, or not, will depend on the state of 
the mind at the moment, the circumstances in which it is 
placed, its previous training and culture, its habits of thought. 
This, too, is an exercise of judgment, comparing, distinguish 
ing, deciding ; a purely intellectual process. It is not so 
much a new element, as a distinct phase of that last named. 
It is the mind deciding and affirming now, not merely that 
the object is beautiful, but in what and why it is so. 

Uniformity of Results, — I change now the experiment. I 
repeat it. I place myself before other works, before works 
of other artists — works of the painter, the architect, the 
musician, the poet, the orator. Whatever is beautiful, in art 
or nature, I observe. I perceive, in all cases, the same results, 
the occurrence of essentially the same mental phenomena. 
I conclude that these effects are produced, not fortuitously, 
but according to the constitution of my nature ; that they 
are not specific instances, but general laws of mental action ; 
in other words, that the mind possesses a susceptibility of 
being impressed in this manner by such objects, and also a 
faculty of judging and discriminating as above described. 
To these two elements, essentially, then, do the mental 
phenomena occasioned by the presence of the beautiful, re- 
duce themselves. 

The Question, — Which, then, of these elements is it that 
answers to the idea of taste, as used to denote a power of 
the mind? Is it the susceptibility of emotion in view of the 
beautifu], the power of feeling ; or is it the faculty of judg- 
ing and di^jcriminating ; or is it both combined ? Our 
definitions, ^s we have seen, include both ; the word, itself 
may denote either ; both are comprised in our analysis of 
the mental phenomena in view of the beautifuL 



294 COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

ISFot the first — Is it the first ? I think not. Taste is 
not mere emotion, nor mere susceptibility of emotion. A 
child or a savage may be deficient in taste, yet they may be 
as deeply moved in view of the beautiful, in nature or art, 
as the man of cultivated mind ; nay, their emotion may ex- 
ceed his. They may regard, with great delight and admira- 
tion, what he will view with entire indifierence. So far from 
indicating a high degree of taste, the very susceptibility ol 
emotion, in such cases, may be the sure indication of a 
want of taste. They are pleased with that which a culti- 
vated and correct taste would condemn. The power of 
being moved is simply sensibility, and sensibility is not taste, 
however closely they may be related. 

Taste the intellectual Element, — Is taste, then, the power 
of mental discrimination which enables me to say that such 
and such things are, or are not, beautiful, and which, in 
some cases, perhaps, enables me to decide why, or wherein 
they are so ? Does it, in a word, denote the intellectual 
rather than the emotional element of the process ? I am 
inclined to think this the more correct view. Susceptibility 
of emotion is, doubtless, concerned in the matter. It has to 
do with taste. It may be even the ground and foundation 
of its exercise, nay, of its existence. But it is not, itself, taste, 
and should not be included, therefore, in the definition. 

Reason for distinguishing the two, — As we distinguish, 
in philosophical investigation, between an emotion and the 
intellectual perception that precedes and gives rise to it, or 
between the perception and the sensation on which it is 
founded, so I would distinguish taste^ or the intellectual 
perception of the beautiful, from the sensation or feeling 
awakened in view of the object. The fact that both elements 
exist, and enter into the series of mental phenomena in view 
of the beautiful, is no reason why they should both be desig- 
nated by the same term, or included in the same definition, 
but, rather, it is a reason why they should be caref iJly di* 
tinguished. 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 295 

The precise nature of this faculty may be more distinctly 
perceived, if we consider, more particularly, its relation to 
iliQ judgment^ and also to the sensibility, 

T'l'Ste^ as related to Judgrae^it, — According to the view 
now taken, taste is only a modification, or rather a particulai 
direction of that general power of the mind which we call 
judgment ; it is judgment exercised about the beautiful. 
It is the office of the judgment to form opinions and behefs, 
fco inform us of relations, to decide that things are thus 
and thus, that this is this, and that is that. As employed in 
different departments of thought, it appears under different 
forms, and is known under diverse names. As employed 
about the actual and sensible, we call it understanding ; in 
the sphere of abstract truth it works under the cognomen 
of reason; in the sphere of practical truth, the thing that is 
good and right to be done by me, it is known as conscience ; 
in the sphere of the ideal and the beautiful it is taste. In 
all these departments of mental activity it is exercised, em- 
ploys itself upon all these subjects, giving us opinion, beUef, 
knowledge, as to them all. The judgment as thus exer- 
cised in relation to the beautiful, that is to say, the mind 
observing, comparing, discriminating, deciding, forming the 
opinion, or reaching it may be the positive knowledge that 
this thing is, or is not, beautiful — for this is simply what w^e 
mean by judgment in any particular instance — judgment, as 
thus exercised, is known by the name of taste. More strictly 
Bpeaking, it is not so much the exercise of the judgment in 
this particular way in given instances, as the fou7idation or 
ground of thdit exercise, the discriminating facidty ov power 
of the mind by virtue of which it thus operates. 

Judgment does not furnish the Ideas, — Does, tlien, the 
judgment, it may be asked, give us originally the ideas of 
the true, the beautifid, and the good? This we do not 
affirm. Judgment is not the source of ideas, certainly not 
of those now mentioned. It does not originate th'^m. 
Their origin and awakening in the human mind is we 



296 COGKIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

should say, on this wise. The beautiful, the true, the good, 
exist as simple, absolute, eternal principles. They are it 
the divine mind. They are in the divme works. In a 
sense they are independent of Deity. He does not create 
them. He cannot reverse them or change their nature. He 
works according to them. They are not created by, but 
only manifested in^ what God does. We are created with 
a nature so formed and endowed as to be capable of recog- 
nizing these principles and being impressed by them. The 
consequence is, that no sooner do we open the eye of reason 
and intelligence upon that which lies around and passes be- 
fore us, in the world, than the idea of the true, the beauti- 
ful, the morally good, is awakened in the mind. We in- 
stinctively perceive and feel their presence in the objects 
presented to our notice. They are the product of our ra- 
tional intelligence, brought into contact, through sense, with 
the world in which we dwell. The idea of beauty or of the 
light, thus once awakened in the mind, when afterward ex- 
amples, or, it may be, violations, of these principles occur, 
the judgment is exercised in deciding that the cases pre- 
sented do or do not properly fall under the class thus desig- 
nated ; and the judgment thus exercised in respect to the 
beautiful, we call taste^ in respect to the right, conscience. 

Taste as now denned, — As now defined, taste is, as to its 
principle, the discriminating power of the 7nind with respect 
to the beautiful or sublime in nature or art ; that certain 
state, quality, or condition of the mental powers and the 
mental culture, the result partly of native difference and en- 
dowment, partly of .education and habit, by virtue of which 
we are able to judge more or less correctly as to the beauty 
or deformity, the merit or demerit of whatever presents it 
self in nature or art as an object of admiration, whethei 
and how far it is in reality beautiful, and of its fitness tc 
awaken in us the emotions that we experience in view 
thereof. If we are able to observe, compare, discriminate, 
form opinions and conclusions well and correctly, on tlieae 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 297 

matters, our taste is good ; otherwise bad. Whether it be 
the one or the other, will depend not entirely on native en- 
dowment, not altogether on the degree to which the judg 
ment is cultivated and developed in respect to other mat- 
ters, but quite as much on the culture and training of the 
mind with respect to the specific objects of taste, viz., the 
beauties of nature and art. Men of strong minds, good 
understanding, and sound judgment in other matters, are 
not necessarily men of good taste. Like every other faculty 
of the mind, taste requires cultivation. 

Taste and good Taste, — It is necessary to distinguish 
between taste, and good taste. Many writers use the terms 
indifferently, as when we say such a one is a man of taste, 
meaning of good taste, or such a one has no taste whatever, 
meaning that he is a man of bad taste. Strictly speaking, 
the savage who rejoices in the disfigurement of his person 
by tattooing, paint, and feathers, is a man of taste^ as really 
as the Broadway dandy, or the Parisian exquisite. He has 
his faculty of judging in such matters, and exercises it — his 
standard of judging, and comes up to it. He is a man of 
taste, but not of correct taste. He has his own notions, but 
they do not agree with ours. He violates all the rules and 
principles by which well-informed minds are guided in such 
matters. He shocks our notions of fitness and propriety, 
excites in us emotions of disgust, or of the ludicrous, and, on 
the whole, we vote him down as a man of no authority in 
such matters. 

As related to Sensibility, — Thus far we have spoken of 
taste only as related to the judgment. It is necessary to con- 
sider also its relation to the sensibility. Taste and sensibil- 
ity are very often confounded. They are, in reality, quite 
distinct. Sensibility, so far as we are at present concerned 
•vith it, is the mind's capability of emotion in view of the 
beautiful or sublime. Taste is its capability of judging^ in 
tiew of the same. Viewed as acts, rather than as states or 
povvers of the mind, sensibility is the feeling awakened \r 



S98 COGNIZANCE' OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 

View of a beautiful object ; taste is the judgment or opinion 
formed respecting it. In the case ah^eady supposed, I stand 
before a fine statue or painting. It moves me, attracts me, 
fills me with delight and admiration. In this, it is not 
directly and immediately my taste, but my sensibility, that is 
affected and brought into play. I begin to judge of the ob- 
ject before me as a work of art, to form an opinion respect* 
ing its merits and demerits ; and, in so doing, my taste is 
exercised. 

The two not always proportional, — Not only are the 
two principles distinct, but not always do they exist in equal 
proportion and development in the same mind. Persons 
of the liveliest sensibility are not always, perhaps not gener. 
ally, persons of the nicest taste. The child, the uneducated 
peasant, the negro, are as highly delighted with beautiful 
forms and beautiful colors as the philosopher, but could not 
tell you so well why they were moved, or what it was, in 
the object, that pleased them ; neither would they discrim- 
mate so well the truly beautiful from that which is not 
worthy of admiration. If there may be sensibility without 
taste, so, on the other hand, a high degree of taste is not 
always accompanied with a corresponding degree of sensibil- 
ity. The practised connoisseur is not always the man who 
enjoys the most at sight of a fine picture. The skillful mu- 
sician has much better taste in music than the child that 
listens, with mingled wonder and delight, to his playing ; but 
we have only to glance at the countenance of each, to see at 
once which feels the most. 

Sensibility not inconsistent with Taste. — I should not, 
however, infer from this, that a high degree of sensibility is 
inconsistent with a high degree of taste. This was Mr. 
Stewart's opinion. The feeling, he would say, will be likely 
to interfere with thcv judgment, in such a case. DoubtlesSj 
where the feeling is highly wrought upon and excited, it 
may, for the time, interfere with the cool and deliberate ex- 
ercise rf the judgment. Yet, nevertheless, if sensibility bo 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 299 

wanting, there will not be likely to be much taste. If 1 feel 
no pleasure at sight of a beautiful landscape or painting, I 
ghall not be likely to trouble myself much about its compar- 
ative merits or defects. It is useless, in such a case, to in- 
quire what pleases me, or why I am pleased, when, in truth, 
nothing pleases me. There is no motive for the exercise of 
judgment in such a case, neither is there an opportunity for 
its action. The very foundation for such an exercise is want- 
ing. A lively sensibility is the basis of a correct taste, the 
ground on which it must rest, the spring and life of its ao 
tion. The two are related somewhat as genius and learning 
which are not always found in equal degree, yet are by no 
means inconsistent with each other. There may be a high 
degree of mental strength and activity, without correspond- 
ing acquisitions ; yet there can hardly b^ learning without 
some degree of mental power and activity. There may be 
fsensibility without much taste, but hardly much taste with- 
out sensibility. Taste is, in a great measure, acquired, cul- 
tivated, an art; sensibility, a native endowment. It may 
be developed, strengthened, educated, but not acquired. 
Genius produces, sensibility admires, taste judges or decides. 
Their action is reciprocal. If taste corrects and restrains the 
too ready or too extravagant sensibility, the latter, on the 
other hand, furnishes the ground and data upon which, after 
all, taste must rely in its decisions. 

Cultivation of Taste. — We have investigated, with some 
care, as w^as proposed, the nature of that power of the mind 
which takes cognizance of the beautiful. On the cultivation 
of this power, a few words must be said in this connection. 
Taste is an intellectual faculty, a perceptive power, a matter 
of judgment, and, as such, both admits and requires cultiva- 
tion. ISTo forms of mental activity depend more on educa- 
tion and exercise, for their full development, than that class 
to which we give the general name of judgment, and no 
form of judgment more than that which we call taste. The 
niind uncultivated, untrained, unused to the nice perception 



JOO COGNIZANCE OF THE BE A UT IF [J ':-. 

of the beautiful, can no more judge correctly, in matters of 
taste, than the mind unaccustomed to judge of the distance^ 
magnitude, or chemical properties of bodies, can form cor- 
rect decisions upon these subjects. It must be trained by 
art, and strengthened by exercise. It must be made familiar 
with the laws, and conversant with the forms of beauty. It 
must be taught to observe and study the beautiful, in 
nature and in art, to discriminate, to compare, to judge 
The works in literature and in art which have received the 
approbation of time, and the honorable verdict of mankind, 
as well as the objects in nature which have commanded the 
admiration of the race, must become familiar, not by obser- 
vation only, but by careful study. Thus may taste be culti- 
vated. 

HisTOEicAL Sketch. 

View of Plato. — Among the ancients, Plato was, per- 
haps, the first to distinguish the idea of the beautiful from 
other kindred ideas, and to point out its affinity with the true 
and the good, thus recognizing in it something immutable 
and eternal. In making the good and the beautiful identical, 
however, he mistakes the true character and end of art. 
Previously to Plato, and even by him, art and the beautifui 
were treated only in connection with ethics and politics • 
aesthetics, as a distinct department of science, was not knowi? 
to the ancients. 

Of Aristotle, — Aristotle has not treated of the beautiful 
but only of dramatic art. Poetry, he thinks, originates in 
the tendency to imitate, and the desire to know. Tragedy 
is the imitation of the better. Painting should represent, in 
like manner, not what is^ but what ought to he. In thifi 
sense, may be understood his profound remark, that poetry 
is more true than history. 

Plotinus and Augustine. — After Aristotle, Phtinus and 
Augusti?ie alone, among the ancients, have treated of the 
beautiful. The work of Aueustinb is not extant. It i» 



COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 301 

known that he made beauty consist in unity and fitness of 
parts, as in music. The treatise of Plotinus is regarded aa 
at once beautiful and profound. Material beauty is, with 
him, only the expression or reflection of spiritual beauty. 
The soul alone, the mind, is beautiful, and in loving the 
beautiful, the soul loves its own image as there expressed. 
Flence, the soul must, itself, be beautiful, in order to com- 
prehend and feel beauty. The tendency of this theory ifl 
to mysticism. 

Longinus and Quintilian. — Longinus, and Quintilian, 
treat of the subUme, only wdth reference to eloquence and 
oratory ; so, also, Horace, of art, as having to do with 
poetry. 

JSacon, — Among the moderns, Bacon recognizes the fine 
arts as among the sciences, and poetry as one of the three 
chief branches of human knowledge, but nowhere, that I am 
aware, treats of the beautiful, distinctly, as such. 

School of Leibnitz. — It was the school of Leibnitz and 

Wolf in Germany that first made the beautiful a distinct 

science. Baumgarten, disciple of Wolf, first conceived this 

idea. Like Plato, however, he makes the beautiful too 

nearly identical with the good and w^th morals. 

School of Locke, — In England, the school of Locke hav^ 
much to say of beauty. Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, w^hile 
they do not clearly distinguish between the beautiful and 
the good, adopt the theory of unity in variety, as already 
explained. Hogarth falls into the same class, his idea o* 
beauty being represented by the waving line. Burke does 
lot distinguish sufficiently between the sublime and the ter* 
rible. 

French Encyclopedists. — In France, the Encyclopedists 
coincide, essentially, with the school of Locke, and treat of 
the beautiful, chiefly in its moral aspect. 

The later Germans. — In Germany, again, Winckelman^ 
an artist, and not a philosopher, seizing the spirit of the 
Greek art, ascribes, as Plato had done, the idea of beauty to 



302 COGNIZANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL 

God, from whom it passes into sensible things, as his mam 
Testations. 

In opposition to this ideal and divine aspect, Lessiny 
takes a more practical view, regarding the beautiful from 
the stand-point of the real. Herder and Goethe contribute, 
also, much to the science of sssthetics. All these do little 
more than prepare the way for Kant^ who goes more pro* 
foundly into the philosophy of the matter. He makes beauty 
a subjective affair, a play of the imagination. 

Schiller makes it the joint product of the reason and the 
sensibility, but still a subjective matter, as Kant. 

Schelling and Hegel, — Schelling develops the spiritual or 
ideal theory of beauty. Hegel carries out this theory and 
makes a complete science of it, classifies and analyzes the 
arts. His work is regarded as the first complete discussion 
of the philosophy of the fine arts. It is characterized by 
strength, clearness, depth, power of analysis, richness of 
imagination. 

Theory of Jouffroy, — Jouffroy^ in France, among the 
later writers, has treated fully, and in an admirable manner, 
of the philosophy of the beautiful. His theory is derived 
from that of Hegel, with some modifications. It is essen- 
tially the theory last presented in the discussion of the sub- 
ject in the preceding section, viz., the expression of the spir- 
itual or invisible element under sensible forms. No writer 
is more worthy of study than Jouffroy. His work is clear, 
strong, and of admirable power of analysis. 

Cousin, — Among the eclectics. Cousin^ in his treatise OD 
the true, the beautiful, and the good, has many just ob- 
servations, with much beauty and philosophic clearness of 
expression. 

M^Dermot, — In English, beside the works already refer- 
red to, must be noticed the treatise of M''Dermot on Taste, 
hi which the nature and objects of taste are fully and weD 
iiscussed. 



CHAPTEE lY. 

IDEA AND COGNIZANCE OF THE RIGHT. 
§ I. — Idea op Right. 

The Idea of Right a Conception of the Mind. — Among 
the conceptions which constitute the furniture of the mind, 
there is one, which, in many respects, is unlike all others, 
while, at the same time, it is more important than all others ; 
that is, the notion or idea of right. 

Universally prevalent, — When we direct our attention 
to any given instance of the voluntary action of any intel- 
ligent rational being, we find ourselves not unfrequently 
pronouncing upon its character as a right or wrong act. Es- 
pecially is this the case when the act contemplated is of a 
marked and unusual character. The question at once 
arises, is it right? Or, it may be, without the consciousness 
of even a question respecting it, our decision follows in- 
stantly upon the mental apprehension of the act itself — this 
thing is right, that thing is wrong. Our decision may be 
correct or incorrect ; our perception of the real nature of 
the act may be clear or obscure ; it may make a stronger or 
weaker impression on the mind, according to our mental 
habits, the tone of our mental nature, and the degree to 
which we have cultivated the moral faculty. There may be 
minds so degraded, and natures so perverted, that the moral 
character of an act shall be quite mistaken, or quite over- 
looked in many cases ; or, when perceived, it shall make little 
impression on them. Even in such minds, however, the idea 
of right and wrong still finds a place, and the understanding 
applies it, though not perhaps always correctly, to particular 
iu^tances of human conduct. There is no reason to beUeva 



304 IDEA OF RIGHT. 

that any mind possessing ordinary endowments, chat de- 
gree of reason and intelligence which nature usually be- 
stows, is destitute of this idea, or fails altogether to apply it 
to its own acts, and those of others. 

The Question and its different Answers, — But here an 
important question presents itself: Whence come these ideas 
and perceptions ; their origin ? How is it, why is it, that 
i^Ov pronounce an act right or wrong, when once fairly ap- 
prehended ? How come we by these notions ? The fact is 
admitted ; the explanations vary. By one class of writers 
our ideas of this nature have been ascribed to education and 
fashion j by another, to legal restriction^ human or divine. 
Others, again, viewing these ideas as the offspring of na- 
ture, have assigned them either to the operation of a special 
sense^ given for this specific purpose, as the eye for vision ; 
or to the joint action of certain associated emotions ; while 
others regard them as originating in an exercise oi judg- 
ment^ and others still, as natural intuitions of the mind, or 
reason exercised on subjects of a moral nature. 

Main Question, — The main question is, are these ideas 
natural; or artificial and acquired ? If the latter, are they 
the result of education, or of legal restraint ? If the for- 
mer, are they to be referred to the sensibilities^ as the 
result of a special sense or of association, or to the intellect^ 
as the result of the faculty of judgment or as intuitions of 
reason ? 

1. Education,- — Come they from Education and Imitor 
Hon ? — So Locke, Paley, and others, have supposed. 
Locke was led to take this view, by tracing, as he did, all 
simple ideas, except those of our own mental operations, to 
sensation, as their source. This allows, of course, no place 
for the ideas of right and wrong, which, accordingly, he 
concluded, cannot be natural ideas, but must be the result 
of education. 

Objection to this View, — Now it is to be conceded that 
education and fashion are powerful instruments in tho cuJ 



IDEA OF RIGHT. 305 

cure of tlie mind. Their influence is not to be ovti looked 
in estimating the causes that shape and direct the opinions 
of men, and the tendencies of an age. But they do not ac- 
count for the origin of any thing. This has been ably and 
clearly shown by Dugald Stewart, in answer to Locke ; and 
it is a sufficient answer. Education and imitation both pre- 
suppose the existence of moral ideas and distinctions ; the 
-SQYj things to be accounted for. How came they who first 
taught these distinctions, and they who first set the example 
of making such distinctions, to be themselves in possession 
of these ideas ? Whence did they derive them ? Who 
taught thetn^ and set them the example ? This is a question 
not answered by the theory now under consideration. It 
gives us, therefore, and can give us, no account of the origin 
of the ideas in question. 

2. Legal Enactment, — Do we then derive these ideas 
from legal restriction and enactment f So teach some 
able writers. Laws are made, human and divine, requir 
ing us to do thus and thus, and forbidding such and 
such things, and hence we get our ideas originally of right 
and wrong. 

Presupposes Right, — If this be so, then, previous to all 
law, there could have been no such ideas, of course. But 
does not law presuppose the idea of right and wnrong ? Is 
it not built on that idea as its basis ? How, then, can it 
originate that on which itself depends, and which it presup- 
poses? The first law ever promulgated must have been 
either a just or an unjust law, or else of no moral character. 
If the latter, how could a law which was neither just nor 
unjust, have suggested to the subjects of it any such ideas? 
If the former, then these qualities, and the ideas of them, 
must have existed prior to the law itself; and w^hoever 
made the law and conferred on it its character, must have 
had already, in his own mind, the idea of the right and its 
opposite. I^ is evident that we cannot, in this way, account 



306 Ii)EA OF RIGHl. 

for tlie origin of the ideas in question. We are no nearer 
the solution of the problem than before. 

In opposition to the views now considered, we must re* 
gard the ideas in question, as, directly or indirectly, the 
work of nature, and the result of our constitution. The 
question still remains, however, in which of the several 
ways indicated, does this result take place ? 

8. Special /S^/zse. — Shall we attribute these ideas to a 
special sense ? This is the view taken by Hutcheson and 
his followers. Ascribing, with Locke, all our simple ideas to 
sensation, but not content with Locke's theory of moral dis- 
tinctions as the result of education, he sought to account for 
them by enlarging the sphere of sensation, and introducing 
a new sense, whose specific office is to take cognizance of 
such distinctions. The tendency of this theory is evident. 
While it deiives the idea of right and its opposite from our 
natural constitution, and is, so far, preferable to either of the 
preceding theories, still, in assigning them a place among 
the sensibilities, it seems to make morality a mere sentiment^ 
a matter of feeling merely, an impression made on our sentient 
nature — a mere subjective affair — as color and taste are 
impressions made on our organs of sense, and not properly 
qualities of bodies. As these affections of the sense do 
not exist independently, but only relatively to us, so moral 
distinctions, according to this view, are merely subjective 
affections of our minds, and not independent realities. 

Hmne and the Sophists. — Hume accedes to this general 
view, and carries it out to its legitimate results, making 
morality a mere relation between our nature and certain 
objects, and not an independent quality of actions. Virtue 
and vice, like color and taste, the bright and the dull, the 
sweet and the bitter, lie merely in our sensations. 

These skeptical views had been advanced long previously 
by the Sophists, who taught that man is the measure of all 
things, that things are only what they seem to us. 

Ambiguity of the term Sense. — It is true, as Stewart has 



IDEA OF RIGHT. 307 

observed, that these views do not ne^^^^iirilj result from 
Hutcheson's theory, nor were they, probablv, held by hhn ; 
but such is the natural tendency of his doctrme. The term 
sense^ as employed by him, is, in itself, ambiguous, and may 
be used to denote a mental perception / but when we speak 
of a sense, we are understood to refer to that part of our 
constitution which, when affected from without, gives us 
certain sensations. Thus the sense of hearing, the sense oi 
vision, the sense of taste, of smell, etc. It is in this way 
that Hutcheson seems to have employed the term, and his 
illustrations all point in this direction. He was unfortunate, 
to say the least, in his use of tenns, and in his illustrations ; 
unfortunate, also, in having such a disciple as Hume, to push 
his theory to its legitimate results. 

If, by a special sense, he meant only a direct perceptive 
power of the mind, then, doubtless, Hutcheson is right in 
recognizing such a faculty, and attributing to it the ideas 
under consideration. But that is not the proper meaning of 
the word se7ise^ nor is that the signification attached to it by 
his followers. 

iVo Evidence of such a Faculty. — But if he means, by 
sense, what the word itself would indicate, some adaptation 
of the sensibilities to receive impressions from things with- 
out, analoo:ous to that bv which we are affected throuo^h the 
organs of sense, then, in the first place, it is not true that 
we have any such special faculty. There is no_ evidence of 
it ; nay, facts contradict it. There is no such uniformity of 
moral impression or sensation as ought to manifest itself on 
this supposition. Men's eyes and ears are much alike, in 
their activity, the world over. That which is white, or red, 
to one, is not black to another, or green to a third ; that 
which is sweet to one, is not sour, or bitter, to another. At 
I iast, if such variations occur, they are the result only of 
Bome unnatural and unusual condition of the organs. But 
it is otherwise with the operation of the so-called special 
sense While all men have probably, some idea of right 



308 IDEA OF RIGHT. 

and wrong, there is the greatest possible variety in its appli- 
cation to particular instances of conduct. What one ap^ 
proves as a virtue, another condemns as a crime. 

iVb Need of it, — Nor, secondly, have we any need to call 
in the aid of a special sense to give us ideas of this kind. It 
is not true, as Locke and Hutcheson believed, that all our 
ideas, except those of our own mental operations, or con- 
sciousness, are derived ultimately from sensation. We have 
ideas of the true and the beautiful, ideas of cause and effect, 
of geometrical and arithmetical relations, and various other 
ideas, which it would be difficult to trace to the senses as 
their source ; and which, equally with the ideas of right and 
wrong, would require, in that case, a special sense for their 
production. 

4. Association, — Shall we, then, adopt the view of that 
class of ethical writers who account for the origin of these 
ideas by the principle of association ? Such men as Hartley, 
Mill, Mackintosh, and others of that stamp, are not lightly 
to be set aside in the discussion of such a question. Their 
view is, that the moral perceptions are the result of certain 
combined antecedent emotions, such as gratitude, pity, re- 
sentment, etc., which relate to the dispositions and actions 
of voluntary agents, and which very easily and naturally 
come to be transferred, from the agent himself, to the ac- 
tion in itself considered, or to the disposition which prompted 
it ; forming, when thus transferred and associated, what we 
call the moral feelings and perceptions. Just as avarice 
arises from the original desire, not of money, but of the 
things which money can procure — which desire comes, event- 
ually, to be transferred, from the objects themselves, to the 
means and instrument of procuring them — and, as sympathy 
arises from the transfer to others of the feelings which, in 
like circumstances, agitate our own bosoms, so, in like man- 
ner, by the principle of association, the feelings which 
naturally arise in view of the conduct of others, are trans- 
ferred from the agent to the act, from the enemy or thd 



IDEA OF RIGHT. 3013 

benefactor, to the injury or the benefaction, which acts stanJ 
afterward, by themselves, as objects of approval or condem 
nation. Hence the disposition to approve all benevolent 
acts, and to condemn the opposite ; which disposition, thus 
formed and transferred, is a part of conscience. So of other 
elementary emotions. 

Makes Conscience a mere Sentiment, — It will be per- 
ceived that this theory, which is indebted chiefly to Mack- 
intosh for its completeness, and scientific form, makes con- 
science wholly a matter of sentiment and feeling ; standing 
in this respect, on the same ground with the theory of a 
special sense, and Uable, in part, to the same objections. 
Hence the name sentimental school, often employed to des- 
ignate, collectively, the adherents of each of these views. 
While the theory, now proposed, might seem then to offer 
a plausible account of the manner in which our moral senti- 
m,ents arise, it does not account for the origin of our ideas 
and perceptions of moral rectitude. Now the moral faculty 
is not a mere sentiment. There is an intellectual perceptioil 
of one thing as light, and another as wrong; and the ques 
tion now before us is. Whence comes that perception, and 
the idea on which it is based ? To resolve the whole matter 
into certain transferred and associated emotions, is to give 
up the inherent distinction of right and wrong as qualities 
of actions, and make virtue and vice creations of the sensi- 
bility, the play and product of the excited feelings. To 
admit the perception and idea of the right, and ascribe their 
origin to antecedent emotion, is, moreover, to reverse the 
natural order and law of psychological operation, which bases 
emotion on perception, and not perception on emotion. We 
do not first admire, love, hate, and then perceive, but the 
reverse. 

Further Objections. — The view now under consideration, 
while it seems to resolve the moral faculty into mere feeling, 
thus making morality wholly a relative affair, makes con- 
science, itself, an acquired, rather than a natural faculty, a 



310 IDEA OF RIGHT. 

secondary process, a transformation of emotions, rathei than 
Itself an original principle. It does it, moreover, the fur- 
ther injustice of deriving its origin from the purely seljish 
principles of our nature. I receive a favor, or an injury ; 
hence I regard, with certain feelings of complacency, or the 
opposite, the man who has thus treated me. These feelings 
I come gradually to transfer to, and associate with, the act 
in itself considered, and this with other acts of the same na- 
ture ; and so, at last, I come to have a moral faculty, and 
pronounce one thing right, and another wrong. 

At Variance with Facts. — This view is quite inadmis- 
sible ; at variance with facts, and the well-known laws of 
the human mind. The moral faculty is one of the earliest to 
develop itself. It appears in childhood, manifesting itself, 
not as an acquired and secondary principle, the result of a 
complicated process of associated and transferred emotion, 
requiring time for its gradual formation and growth, but 
rather as an original instinctive principle of nature. 

Sympathy, — Adam Smith, in his "Theory of Moral 
Sentiments," has proposed a view which falls properly under 
the general theory of association, and may be regarded as a 
modification of it. He attributes our moral perceptions tc 
the feeling of sympathy. To adopt the feelings of another 
is to approve them. If those feelings are such as would 
naturally be awakened in us by the same objects, we ap- 
prove them as morally proper. Sympathy with the grati- 
tude of one who has received a favor, leads us to regard the 
benefaction as meritorious. Sympathy with the resentment 
of an injured man, leads us to regard the injurer as worthy 
of punishment, and so the sense of demerit originates ; sym- 
pathy with the feelings of others respecting our own con- 
duct gives rise to self-approval and sense of duty. Rules oi 
rnorality are merely a summary of these sentiments. 

This View not sustained by Consciousness. — Whatever 
credit may be due to this ingenious writer, for calling atten- 

« 

tion to *^ principle which had not been sufficiently taken into 



IDEA OF RIGHT. 811 

a( count by preceding philosophers, we cannot but regard it 
as an insufficient explanation of the present case. In the 
first place, we are not conscious of the clement of sympath}' 
in the decisions and perceptions of the moral facult3\ We 
look at a given action of right or wrong, and approve of it, 
or condemn it on that ground^ because it is right or wrong . 
not because we S3^mpathize with the feelings awakened by 
the act in the minds of others. If the process now supposed 
intervened between our knowledge of the act, and our judg- 
ment of its morality, we should know it and recognize it as 
a distinct element. 

Ho imperative Character, — Furthermore, sympathy, like 
other emotions, has no imperative character, and, even if it 
might be supposed to suggest to the mind some idea of 
moral distinctions, cannot of itself furnish a foundation for 
those feelings of obligation which accompany and character- 
ize the decisions of the moral faculty. 

The Standard of Right. — But more than this, the viev/ 
now taken makes the standard of right and wrong variable^ 
and dependent on the feelings of men. We must know 
how others think and feel, how the thing affects them, be- 
fore we can know whether a given act is right or wrong, to 
be performed or avoided. And then, furthermore, our feel- 
ings must agree with theirs ; there must be sympathy and 
harmony of views and feelings, else the result will not fol- 
low. If any thing prevents us from knowing what are the 
feelings of others with respect to a given course of conduct, 
or if for any reason we fail to sympathize with those feel- 
ings, we can have no conscience in the matter. As those 
feelings vary, so will our moral perceptions vary. We have 
no fixed standard. There is no place left for right, as such, 
and absolutely. If no sympathy, then no duty, no right, no 
morality. 

Result of the preceding Inquiries. — We have, as yet, 
found no satisfactory explanation of the origin of our moral 
ideas and perceptions. They seem not to be the result of 



512 IDEA OF KIGHT. 

education and Imitation, nor yet of legal enactment. They 
eeem to be natural, rather than artificial and acquired. Yet 
we cannot trace them to the action of the sensitive part of 
our nature. They are not the product of a special sense, 
nor yet of the combined and associated action of certain 
aatural emotions, much less of any one emotion, as sym- 
pathy. And yet they are a part of our nature. Place man 
where yon will, surround him with what influences you will, 
you still find in him, to some extent at least, indications of 
a moral nature ; a nature modified, indeed, by circumstances, 
but never wholly obliterated. Evidently we must refer the 
ideas in question, then, to the intellectual, since they do not 
belong to the sensitive part of our nature. 

6. Judgment, — Are they then the product and operation 
of the faculty of judgment ? But the judgment does not 
originate ideas. It compares, distributes, estimates, decides 
to what class and category a thing belongs, but creates 
nothing. I have in mind the idea of a triangle, a circle, 
etc. So soon as certain figures are presented to the eye, I 
refer them at once, by an act of judgment, to the class to 
which they belong. I afiirm that to be a triangle, this, a 
^jrcle, etc. ; the judgment does this. But judgment does 
^ot furnish my mind with the primary idea of a circle, etc. 
It deals with this idea already in the mind. So in our judg- 
ment of the beauty and deformity of objects. The percep- 
tion that a landscape or painting is beautiful, is, in one sense, 
an act of judgment ; but it is an act which presupposes the 
'dea of the beautiful already in the mind that so judges. 
So also of moral distinctions. Whence comes the idea of 
right and wrong which lies at the foundation of every parti- 
cular judgment as to the moral character of actions ? This 
IS the question before us, still unanswered ; and to this there 
remains but one reply. 

6. These Ideas intuitive, — The ideas in question are in- 
tuitive y suggestions or perceptions of reason. The view 
uow proposed may be thus stated : It is the ofiice of reason 



IDEA OF RIGHT. 313 

to discern the right and the wrong, as well as tht true and 
the false, the beautiful and the reverse. Regarded subject- 
ively, as conceptions of the human mind, right and wrong, 
as well as beauty and its opposite, truth and its opposite, are 
simple ideas, incapable of analysis or definition ; intuitiofu 
of reason. Regarded as objective, right and wrong are 
realities, qualities absolute, and inherent in the nature of 
things, not fictitious, not the play of human fancy or human 
feeling, not relative merely to the human mind, but inde- 
pendent, essential, universal, absolute. As such, reason re- 
f.*ognizes their existence. Judgment decides that such and 
such actions do possess the one or the other of these quali- 
ties ; are right or wrong actions. There follows the sense 
of obligation to do or not to do, and the consciousness of 
merit or demerit as we comply, or fail to comply, with the 
same. In view of these perceptions emotions arise, but 
only as based upon them. The emotions do not, as the 
sentimental school aflJrm, originate the idea, the perception ; 
but the idea, the perception, gives rise to the emotion. We 
are so constituted as to feel certain emotions in view of the 
moral quality of actions, but the idea and perception of that 
moral quality tuvl^Sj precede^ and it is the office of reason to 
produce this. 

First Truths. — There are certain simple ideas which 
must be regai'ded as first truths, or first principles, of the 
human understanding, essential to its operations, ideas uni- 
versal, absolute, necessary. Such are the ideas of personal 
existence, and identity, of time and space, as conditions oi 
material existence ; of number, cause, and mathematical re- 
lation. Into this class fall the ideas of the true, the beauti- 
ful, the right, and their opposites. The fundamental maxims 
of reasoning and morals find here their place. 

How awakened, — These are, in a sense, intuitive percep- 
tions ; not strictly innate, yet connate ; the foundation for 
them being laid in our nature and constitution. So soon asi 
the mind reaches a certain stage of development thev pre- 

14 



314 COGNITION OF RIJHT. 

sent themselves. Circumstances may promote or retartl 
cheir appearance. They depend on opportunity to furnisb 
the occasion of their springing up, yet they are, nevertheless, 
the natural, spontaneous development of the human soul, aa 
really a part of our nature as are any of our instinctive im- 
pulses, or our mental attributes. They are a part of that 
native intelligence with which we are endowed by the au- 
thor of our being. These intuitions of ours, are not them- 
selves the foundation of right and wrong ; they do not 
make one thing right and another wrong ; but they are 
simply the reason why we so regard them. Such we 
believe to be the true account of the origin of our moral 
perceptions. 

§ n. — Cognizance op the Right. 

The Cognition distinguished from the Idea of Might. — 
Having, in the preceding section, discussed the idea of the 
right, in itself considered, as a conception of the mind, we 
proceed now to consider the action of the mind as cognizant 
of right. The theme is one of no little difficulty, but, at the 
same time, of highest importance. 

Existence of this Power, — After what has been already 
said, it is hardly necessary to raise the preliminary inquiry, 
as to the existence of a moral faculty in man. That we do 
possess the power of making moral distinctions, that we do 
discriminate between the right and the wrong in human 
conduct, is an obvious fact in the history and psychology of 
the race. Consciousness, observation, the form of language, 
the literature of the world, the usages of society, all attest 
and confirm this truth. We are conscious of the operation 
of this principle in ourselves, whenever we contemplate oui 
own conduct, or that of others. We find ourselves, involun 
tarily, and as by instinct, pronouncing this act to be right 
that, wrong. We recognize the obligation to do, or to havf 
done, otherwise. We approve, or condemn. We are sus 






COGNITION OF RIGHT. 315 

lained by the calm sense of that self-approval, or cast down 
by the fearful strength and bitterness of that remorse. And 
what we find in ourselves, we observe, also, in others. In 
like circumstances, they recognize the same distinctions, and 
exhibit the same emotions. At the story or the sight of 
some flagrant injustice and wrong, the child and the savage 
are not less indignant than the philosopher. Nor is this a 
matter peculiar to one age or people. The languages and 
ihe Uterature of the world indicate, that, at all times, and 
among all nations, the distinction between right and wrong 
has been recognized and felt. The rb dcKawv and to KaXov 
of the Greeks, the honestum and the pulchtmm of the Latins, 
are specimens of a class of words, to be found in all lan- 
e^uages, the proper use and significance of which is to express 
the distinctions in question. 

Since, then, we do unquestionably recognize moral distinc- 
tions, it is clear that we have a moral faculty. 
' Questions which present themselves, — Without further 
consideration of this point, we pass at once to the investiga- 
tion of the subject itself. Our inquiries relate principally 
to the nature and authority of this faculty. On these points, 
It is hardly necessary to say, great difierence of opinion has 
existed among philosophers and theologians, and grave 
questions have arisen. What is this faculty as exercised ; a 
judgment, a process of reasoning, or an emotion ? Does it 
belong to the rational or sensitive part of our nature : to the 
domain of intellect, or of feeling, or both ? What is the 
value and correctness of our moral perceptions, and especially 
of that verdict of approbation or censure^ which we pass 
upon ourselves and others, according as the conduct con- 
forms to, or violates, recognized obligation ? Such are som« 
of the questions which have arisen respecting the nature and 
authority of conscience. 

I. The Nature of Conscience. — What is it ? A matter 
^'ii intellect., or oi feeling ; 2, judgment., or an emotion? 

A careful analysis of the phenomena of conscience, with a 



SF16 COGNITION OF RIGHT. 

view to determine the several elements, or mental processes^ 
that constitute its operation, may aid us in the solution of 
this question. 

Anaxysis of an Act of Consciet^ce, 

Cognition of Might, — Whenev^ the conduct of intelli- 
gent and rational beings is made the subject of contempla- 
tion, whether the act thus contemplated be our own or 
another's, and whether it be an act already performed, or 
only proposed, we are cognizant of certain ideas awakened 
in the mind, and of certain impressions made upon it. First 
of all, the act contemplated strikes us as right or wrong. 
This involves a double element, an idea^ and a perception or 
judgment. The idea of right and its opposite are, in the 
mind, simple ideas, and, therefore, indefinable. In the act 
contemplated, we recognize the one or the other of these 
simple elements, and pronounce it, accordingly, a right or 
wrong act. This is simply a judgmeM^ a perception, an ex- 
ercise of the understanding. 

Of Obligation. — No sooner is this idea, this cognition, 
of the Tightness or wrongness of the given act, fairly enter- 
tained by the mind, than another idea, another cognition, 
presents itself, given along with the former, and inseparable 
from it, viz., that of obligation to do, or not to do, the given 
act: the oughts and the ought not — also simple ideas, and 
indefinable. This applies equally to the future and to the 
past, to ourselves and to others : I ought to do this thing. 
I ought to hawe done it yesterday. He ought, or ought not 
to do, or to have done it. This, like the former, is an intel- 
lectual act, a perception or cognition of a truth, of a reality 
for which we have the same voucher as for any other reality 
or apprehended fact, viz., the reliability of our mental facul- 
ties in general, and the correctness of their operation in the 
Bpecific instance. It is a conviction of the mind inseparable 
from the perception of right. Given, a clear perception of 
the one, and we cannot escape the other. 



COGNITION OF RIGHT 317 

Of Merit and Defmerit, — There follows a third element, 
ogically distinct, but chronologically inseparable, from the 
preceding : the cognition of merit or demerit in connection 
with the deed, of good or ill desert, and the consequent ap 
proval or disapproval of the deed and the doer. No sooner 
do we perceive an action to be right or wrong, and to in- 
volve, therefore, an obligation on the part of the doer, than 
there arises, also, in the mind, the idea of merit or de- 
merit, in connection with the doing ; we regard the agent 
as deserving of praise or blame, and in our own minds do 
approve or condemn him and his course, accordingly. This 
approval of ourselves and others, according to the appre- 
hended desert of the act and the actor, constitutes a process 
of trial, an inner tribunal, at whose bar are constantly ar- 
raigned the deeds of men, and whose verdict it is no easy 
matter to set aside. This mental approval may be regarded 
by some as a matter of feeling, rather than an intellectual 
act. We speak oi feelings of approval and of condemnation. 
To approve and condemn, however, are, properly, acts of 
the judgment. The feelings consequent upon such approval 
or disapproval are usually of such a nature, and of such 
strength, as to attract the principal attention of the mind Xo 
themselves, and, hence, we naturally come to think ana 
speak of the whole process as a matter of feeling. Strictly 
viewed, it is an intellectual perception, an exercise of judg- 
ment, givmg sentence that the contemplated act is, or is not, 
meritorious, and awarding praise or blame accordingly. 

This completes the process. I can discover nothing in 
the operation of my mind, m view of moral action, which 
does not resolve itself into some one of these elements. 

These Elements intellectual — Viewed in themselves, 
these are, strictly, intellectual operations ; the recognition 
of the right, the recognition of obligation, the perception ot 
good or fll desert, are all, properly, acts of the intellect. 
Each of these cognitive acts, however, involves a corres- 
yo7idiny actio7i of the sensibilities. The perception of the 



318 COGNITION OF RIGHT. 

right awakens, in the pure and virtuous mind, feelings of 
pleasure, admiration, love. The idea of obligation becomes, 
in its turn, through the awakened sensibilities, an impulse 
and motive to action. The recognition of good or ill desert 
awakens feelings of esteem and complacency, or the reverse; 
fills the soul with sweet peace, or stings it with sharp re- 
morse. All these things must be recognized and included 
by the psychologist among the phenomena of conscience 
These emotions, however, are based on, and grow out o^ 
the intellectual acts already named, and are to be viewed as 
an incidental and subordinate, though by no means unim- 
portant, part of the whole process. When we speak of con- 
science, or the moral faculty, we speak of a power , a faculty 
and not merely a feeling or susceptibility of being affected. 
It is a cognitive power, having to do with realities, recog- 
nizing real distinctions, and not merely a passive play of the 
sensibilities. It isi simply the mind's power of recognizing a 
certain class of truths and relations. As such, we claim for 
it a place among the strictly cognitive powers of the mind, 
among the faculties that have to do with the perception of 
truth and reality. 

Importance of this J^osition. — This is a point of some 
importance. If, with certain writers, we make the moral 
faculty a matter of mere feeling, overlooking the intellectual 
perceptions on which this feeling is based, we overlook and 
leave out of the account, the chief elements of the process. 
The moral faculty is no longer a cognitive power, no longer, 
in truth, a faculty. The distinctions which it seems to re» 
cognize are merely subjective / impressions, feelings, to 
which there may, or may not, be a corresponding realityr 
We have at least no evidence of any such reahty. Such 
a viiw subtracts the very foundation of morals. Our feel 
ing* vary ; but right and wrong do not vary with our feel- 
ings. They are objective realities, and not subjective phe- 
nomena. As such, the mind, by virtue of the natural powers 
with which it i& endowed by the Creator, recognizes then 



.1 



COGNITION OF RIGHT. 319 

The power by which it gives this, we call the moral faculty j 
just as we call its power to take cognizance of another class 
of truths and relations, viz., the beautiful, its cesthetic faculty. 
In view of these truths and relations, as thus perceived, cer- 
tain feelings are, in either case, awakened, and these emo- 
tions may, with propriety, be regarded as pertaining to, and 
a part of* the phenomena of conscience, and of taste ; the 
full discussion of either of these faculties will include the 
action of the sensibilities ; but in neither case will a true 
psychology resolve the faculty into the feeling. The mathe- 
matician experiences a certain feeling of delight in perceiv- 
ing the relation of lines and angles, but the power of per- 
ceiving that relation, the faculty by which the mind takes 
cognizance of such truth, is not to be resolved into the feel- 
iag that results from it. 

Result of Analysis, — As the result of our analysis, we 
obtain the following elements as involved in, and constitut 
ing, an operation of the moral faculty : 

(1.) The mental perception that a given act is right or wrong. 

(2.) The perception of obligation with respect to the 
same, as right or wrong. 

(3.) The perception of merit or demerit, and the conse- 
quent approbation or censure of the agent, as doing the 
right or the wrong thus perceived. 

(4.) Accompanying these intellectual perceptions, and 
based upon them, certain corresponding emotions, varying 
in intensity according to the clearness of the mental percep- 
tions, and the purity of the moral nature. 

n. Authority of Conscience, — Thus far we have cod 
wdered the nature of conscience. The question arises now 
as to its authority — the reliableness of its decisions. 

If conscience correctly discerns the right and the wrong, 
and the consequent obligation, it will be Hkely to judge 
correctly as to the deserts of the doer. If it mistake these 
l)oints, it may approve what is not worthy of approval, and 
condemn what is good. 



320 COGNITION OF RIGHT. 

W7iat Evide7ice of Correctness. — How are we to know, 
then, whether conscience judges right ? What voucher 
have we for its correctness ? How far is it to be trusted 
in its perceptions and decisions ? Perhaps we are so con- 
stituted, it may he said, as invariably to judge that to be 
right which is wrong, and the reverse, and so to approve 
where we should condemn. True, we reply, this may be 
so. It may be that I am so constituted, that two and two 
shall seem to be four, when in reality they are five ; and 
that the three angles of a triangle shall seem to be equal to 
two right angles, when in reality they are equal to three. 
This may be so. Still it is a presumption in favor of the 
correctness of all our natural perceptions, that they are the 
operation of original principles of our constitution. It is 
not probable, to say the least, that we are so constituted by 
the great Author of our being, as to be habitually deceived. 
It may be that the organs of vision and hearing are abso- 
lutely false ; that the things which we see, and hear, and feel, 
through the medium of the senses, have no correspondence 
to our supposed perceptions. But this is not a probable sup- 
position. He who denies the validity of the natural facul 
ties, has the burden of proof; and proof is of course impos- 
sible ; for the simple reason, that, in order to prove them 
false, you must make use of these very faculties ; and if 
their testimony is not reliable in the one case, certainly it is 
not in the other. We must then take their veracity for 
granted ; and we have the right to do so. And so of our 
moral nature. It comes from the Author of our being, and 
if it is uniformly and originally wrong, then he is wrong. 
[t is an error, which, in the nature of the case, can never be 
detected or corrected. W e cannot get beyond our constitu 
tion, back of our natural endowments, to judge, a priori^ 
and from an external position, whether they are correct or 
not. Right and wrong are not, indeed, the creations of the 
divi«e will ; but the faculties by which we perceive and ai> 



COGNITION OF RIGHT. 321 

prove the right, and condemn the wrong, are from him; 
and we must presume upon their general correctness. 

Not infallible, — It does not follow from this, however, 
nor do we affirm, that conscience is infallible, that she never 
errs. It does not follow that our moral perceptions and 
judgments are invariably correct, because they spring from 
our native constitution. This is not so. There is not one 
of the faculties of the human mind that is not liable to err. 
Not one of its activities is infalhble. The reasoning power 
sometimes errs ; the judgment errs ; the memory errs. The 
moral faculty is on the same footing, in this respect, with 
any and all other faculties. 

Its Value not thus destroyed. — But of what use, it will 
be said, is a moral faculty, on which, after all, we cannot 
rely ? Of what use, we reply, is any mental faculty, that 
is not absolutely and universally correct ? Of what use is a 
memory or a judgment, that sometimes errs ? We do not 
wholly distrust these faculties, or cast them aside as worth- 
less. A time-keeper may be of great value, though not ab- 
solutely perfect. Its authorship and original construction 
may be a strong presumption in favor of its general correct- 
ness ; nevertheless its hands may have been accidentally set 
to the wrong hour of the day. 

Actual Occurrence of such Cases, — This is a spectacle 
that not unfrequently presents itself in the moral world — 
a man with his conscience pointing to the wrong hour ; a 
strictly conscientious man, fully and firmly persuaded that 
he is right, yet by no means agreeing with the general con- 
victions of mankind ; an hour or two before, or, it may be, 
as much behind the age. Such men are the hardest of all 
mortals to be set right, for the simple reason, that they are 
conscientious. " Here is my watch ; it points to such an 
hour ; and my watch is fi'om the very best maker. I cannol 
be mistaken," And yet he is mistaken, and egregiously so 
The truth is, conscience is no more infallible than any othei 
mental faculty. It is simply, as we have seen, a power oi 



322 C0GNITI015 OF RIGHT. 

perceiving and judging, and its operations, like all othe* 
perceptions and judgments, are liable to error. 

Diversity of Moral Judgment. — And this which we have 
just said, goes far to account for the great diversity that 
has long been known to exist in the moral judgments and 
opinions of men. It has often been urged, and with great 
foroe, against the supposed existence of a moral faculty in 
man, as a part of his original nature, that men think and act 
so differently with respect to these matters. Nature, it is 
said, ought to act uniformly ; thus eyes and ears do not give 
essentially conflicting testimony, at different times, and in 
different countries, with respect to the same objects. Cer- 
tain colors are universally pleasing, and certain sounds dis- 
agreeable. But not so, it is said, with respect to the moral 
judgments of men. What one approves, another condemns. 
If these distinctions are universal, absolute, essential ; and if 
the power of perceiving them is inherent in our nature, men 
ought to agree in their perception of them. Yet you will 
find nothing approved by one age and people, which is not 
condemned by some other ; nay, the very crimes of one age 
and nation, are the religious acts of another. If the per- 
ception of right and wrong is intuitive, how happens this 
diversity ? 

This Diversity accounted for. — To which I reply, the 
thing has been already accounted for. Our ideas of right 
and wrong, it was stated, in discussing their origin, depend 
on circumstances for their time and degree of development. 
They are not irrespective of opportunity. Education, habits, 
laws, customs, while they do not originate, still have much 
to do with the development and modification of these ideas. 
They may be by these influences aided or retarded in their 
growth, or even quite misdirected, just as a tree may, by 
unfavorable influences, be hindered and thwarted in its 
growth, be made to turn and twist, and put forth abnormal 
and monstrous developments. Yet nature works there, 
ne% ertheless, and in spite of all such obstacles, and unfavor- 



COGNITION OF RIGHT. 828 

ftLle circumstances, seeks to put forth, according to her .aws, 
her perfect and finished work. All that we contend is, that 
nature, under favorable circumstances, develops in the human 
mind, the idea of moral distinctions, while, at the same time, 
men may differ m/ach in their estimate of what is rights and 
what is wro7ig^ according to the circumstances and in- 
fluences surrounding them. To apply the distinction of 
right and wrong to particular cases, and decide as to the 
cnorality of given actions, is an office of judgment, and the 
judgment may err in this, as in any other of its operations, 

It may be biassed by unfavorable influences, by wrong edu^ 

* 

cation, wrong habits, and the like. 

Analogy of other Faculties, — The same is true, substan- 
tially, of all other natural faculties and their operations. 
They depend on circumstances for the degree of their de- 
velopment, and the mode of their action. Hence they are 
liable to great diversity and frequent error. Perception 
misleads us as to sensible objects, not seldom ; even in their 
mathematical reasonings, men do not always agree. There 
is the greatest possible diversity among men, as to the re 
tentiveness of the memory, and as to the extent and powe^ 
of the reasoning faculties. The savage that thinks it n^ 
wrong to scalp his enemy, or even to roast and eat him, i** 
utterly unable to count twenty upon his fingers ; while thf 
philosopher, who recognizes the duty of loving his neigh 
bor as himself, calculates, with precision, the motions of th« 
heavenly bodies, and predicts their place in the heaven, 
for ages to come. Shall we conclude, because of this 
diversity, that these several faculties are not parts of our 
nature ? 

General Uniformity. — We are by no means disposed to 
admit, however, that the diversity in men's moral judgments 
Is so great, as might, at first, appear. There is, on the con- 
trary, a general uniformity. As to the great essential prin- 
ciples of morals, men, after all, do judge much alike, in 
different ages and different countries. In details, ttiey differ 



324 COGII^ITION OF RIGHT. 

in general principles, they agree. In the application of the 
rules of morality to particular actions, they differ widely, 
according to circumstances ; in the recognition of the right 
and the wrong, as distinctive principles, and of obligation to 
do the right as known, and avoid the wrong as known, in 
this they agree. It must be remembered, moreover, that 
men do not always act according to their own ideas of right. 
From the general negiect of virtue, in any age or com 
munity, and the prevalence of great and revolting crimes^ 
we cannot safely infer the absence, or even the perversion^ 
of the moral faculty. 

Precisely in what the Diversity consists, — It is import- 
ant to bear in mind, throughout this discussion, the distinc- 
tion between the idea of right, in itself considered, and the 
perception of a given act as right ; the one a simple concep- 
tion, the other an act of judgment ; the one an idea derived 
from the very constitution of the mind, connate, if not in- 
nate, the other an application of that idea, by the under- 
standing, to particular instances of conduct. The former, 
the idea of moral distinctions, may be universal, necessary, 
absolute, unerring ; the latter, the application of the idea to 
particular instances, and the decision that such and such 
acts are, or are not, right, may be altogether an incorrect 
and mistaken judgment. Now it is precisely at this point 
that the diversity in the moral judgments of mankind makes 
its appearance. In recognizing the distinction of right and 
wrong, they agree ; in the application of the same to partic- 
ular instances in deciding what is right and what is wrong 
— a simple act of the judgment, an exercise of the under- 
standing, as we have seen — in this it is that they diffei. 
And the difference is no greater, and no more inexpli- 
cable, with respect to this, than in any other class of judg- 
ments. 

Conscience not always a safe Guide, — I have admitted 
that conscience is not infallible. Is it, then, a safe guide? 
Are we, in all casea to fn^^ow its decisions? Since liable to 



COGNITION OF RIGHT. 325 

err, it cannot be, in itself, I reply, in all cases, a safe 
guide. We cannot conclude, with certainty, that a given 
course is right, simply because conscience approves it. This 
does not, of necessity, follow. The decision that a given 
act is right, or not, is simply a matter of judgment ; and the 
judgment may, or may not, be correct. That depends on 
circumstances, on education partly, on the light we have, be 
it more or less. Conscientious men are not always in the 
right. We may do wrong conscientiously. Saul of Tarsus 
was a conscientious persecutor, and verily thought he was 
doing God service. No doubt, many of the most intolerant 
and relentless bigots have been equally conscientious, and 
equally mistaken. Such men are all the more dangerous, 
because doing what they believe to be right. 

It is, nevertheless, to be followed, — What, then, are we 
to do ? Shall wo follow a guide thus liable to err ? Yes, 
I reply, follow conscience ; but see that it be a right and 
well-informed conscience, forming its judgments, not from 
impulse, passion, prejudice, the bias of habit, or of unreflecting 
custom, but from the clearest light of reason, and especially 
of the divine word. We are responsible for the judgments 
we form in morals, as much as for any class of our judg- 
ments ; responsible, in other words, for the sort of conscience 
we have. Saul's mistake lay, not in accing according to 
his conscientious convictions of duty, but in not having a 
more enlightened conscience. He should have formed a 
more careful judgment; have inquired more diligently aft^r 
the right way. To say, however, that a man ought not to 
do what conscience approves, is to say that he ought not to 
do what he sincerely believes to be right. This would be a 
very strange rule in morals. 

Conscience not exclusively intellectual, — I have dis- 
cussed, as I proposed, the nature and authority of con- 
science. In this discussion I have treated of the moral 
Giculty as an intellectual, rather than an emotional power. 
I would not be understood, however, as implying that con 



326 COGNITION OF RIGHT. 

science has not also an emotional character. Every intelleo- 
tual act, and faculty of action, partakes more or less of thisi 
character, is accompanied by feeling, and these feelings are 
in some degree peculiar, it may be, to the particular faculty 
or act of mind to which they relate. The exercise of ima- 
gination involves some degree of feeling, either pleasurable 
or painful, and that often in a high degree; so also the 
aesthetic faculty. It is peculiarly so with the exercise of the 
moral faculty. As already stated, in our analysis of an act 
of conscience, it is impossible to view our past conduct as 
right or wrong, and to approve or condemn ourselves ac- 
cordingly, without emotion ; and these emotions will vary 
in intensity, according to the clearness and force of our 
intellectual conception of the merit or demerit of our con- 
duct. 

These feelings constitute an important part of the pheno- 
mena ||£ moral action, and consequently of psychology; as 
they-i#long, however, to the department of sensibility y 
rather than of intellect^ their further discussion is not here 
in place. They will be considered in connection with other 
emotions in the subsequent divisio*i of the work. 



INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES 



SUPPLEMENTARY TOPICS. 



SUPPLEMENTARY TOPICS. 



CHAPTER I 

CNSTINCT. — THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE BRUTE AS DISTlljr^ 
GUISHED FROM THAT OF MAN 

Closely connected with the philosophy of human intehi- 
geuce is the science of instinct^ or the intelligence of the 
brute — a subject of interest not merely in its relations to 
psychology, but to some other sciences, as natural history, 
and theology. 

We work at a Disadvantage in such Inquiries, — With 
regard to this matter, it must be confessed, at the outset, 
that we work, in some respects, in the dark, in our inquiries 
and speculations concerning it. It lies wholly removed 
from the sphere of consciousness. We can only observe, 
compare, and infer, and our conclusions thus derived must 
be liable, after all, to error. The operations of our own 
minds we know by the clearest and surest of all sources of 
knowledge, viz., our own consciousness ; the operation of 
brute intelligence must ever be in great measure unknown 
and a mystery to us. How far the two resemble each other, 
and how far they differ, it is not easy to determine, not easy 
to draw the dividing line, and say wheie brute intelligenco 
stops and human intelligence begins. 

Method proposed, — Let us first define instinct, the term 
usually applied to denote brute intelligence, and ascertain, 
if possible, what are its pecuKar characteristics ; we may 
then be able to determine wherein it differs from intelligencti 
m man 



330 INSTINCT. 

Definition, — I understand, by instinct, a law of action, 
governing and directing the movement of sentient beingg 
— distinct, on the one hand, from the mere blind forces of 
matter, as attraction, etc., and from reason on the other ; a 
law working to a given end by impulse, yet blindly —the sub 
ject not knowing why he thus works ; a law innate, inher- 
ent in the constitution of the animal, not acquired but trans- 
mitted, the origin of which is to be found in the intelligent 
author of the universe. These I take to be the principal 
characteristics of that which we term instinct. 

Instinct a Law. — It is a law of action. In obedience to 
it the bee constructs her comb, and the ant her chambers, 
and the bird her nest ; and in obedience to it, the animal, 
of whatever species, seeks that particular kind of food which 
is intended and provided for it. These are merely instances 
of the operation of that law. The uniformity and univer 
sality which characterize the operations of this principle, 
show it to be a law of action, and not a merely casual oc- 
currence. 

Works by Impulse. — It is a law working by impulse^ not 
mechanical or automatic, on the one hand, nor yet rational 
on the other. The impelling or motive force, in the case 
supposed, is not that of a weight acting upon machinery, or 
any Uke mechanical principle, nor yet the reflex action of a 
nerve when irritated, or the spasmodic action of a muscle. 
It is not analogous to the influence of gravitation on the 
purely passive forms of matter. Nor yet is it that higher 
principle which we term reason in man. The bird constructs 
her nest as she does, and the bee her cell, in obedience to 
some blind yet powerful and unfailing impulse of her nature, 
guiding and directing her movements, prompting to action, 
and to this specific form of action, with a restless yearning, 
unsatisfied until the end is accomplished. Yet the creaturo 
does not herself understand the law by which she works. 
The bee does not know that she constructs her comb at that 
pi'ecise angle which will afford the greatest content in th^ 



INSTINCT. 331 

least space, does not know why she constructs it at thai 
precise angle, could give no reason for her procedure, even 
were she capable of understandi^ig our question. It is not 
with her a matter of reflection, nor of reason, at all, bul 
merely of blind, unthinking, yet unerring impulse. 

As innate, — This law is innate, inherent in the constitu- 
tion of the animal, not acquired. It is not the result of 
education. The bird does not learn to build her nest, noi 
the bee her comb, nor the ant her subterranean chambers, 
by observing how the parent works and builds. Removed 
from all opportunities of observation or instruction, the un 
taught animal still performs its mission, constructs its nest 
or cell, and does it as perfectly in solitude as among its fel- 
lows, as perfectly on the first attempt as ever after. What- 
ever intelligence there is involved in these labors and con- 
structions, and certainly the very highest intelligence would 
seem, in many instances, to be concerned in them, is an in- 
telligence transmitted, and not acquired, the origin of which 
is to be sought, ultimately, not in the creature itself, but in 
the Author of all intelligence, the Creator of the universe. 
The intelligence is that not of the creature, but of the Creator. 

Manifests itself irrespective of Circumstances. — It is to 
be further observed, with respect to the principle under con- 
sideration, that it often manifests its peculiar tendencies 
prior to the development of the appropriate organs. The 
young calf butts with its head before its horns are grown. 
The instinctive impulse manifests itself, also, under circum- 
stances which render its action no longer needful. The 
beaver caught and confined in a room, constructs its dam, 
as aforetime, with whatsoever materials it can command, 
although, in its present circumstances, such a structure is of 
no possible use. These facts evidently indicate the presence 
and action of an impulse working blindly, without reflection, 
without reason, without intelligence, on the part of the ani 
mal. 

Indications of Contrivance. — On the other hand, there 



332 INSTINCT 

are instances of brute action which seem to indicate con. 
trivance and adaptation to circumstances. The bee compelled 
to construct her comb in an unusual and unsafe position, 
steadies it by constructing a brace of wax-work between the 
side that inclines and the nearest wall of the hive. The 
spider, in like manner, whose web is in danger, runs a line, 
froni the part exposed to the severest strain or pressure, to 
the nearest point of support, in such a manner as to secure 
the slender fabric. A bird has been known, in like manner, 
to support a bough, which proved too frail to sustain the 
weight of the nest, and of her young, by connecting it, with 
a thread, to a stronger branch above. 

These Facts do not pro^je Reason. — Facts of this nature, 
however interesting, and well authenticated, must be re- 
garded rather as exceptions to the ordinary rule, the nearest 
approach which mere instinct has been known to make 
toward the dividing line that separates the brute from the 
human intelligence. They do not, in themselves, prove the 
existence of reason, of a discriminating and reflecting intelli- 
gence, on the part of the animal ; for the same law of nature 
that impels the creature to build its nest or its comb, under 
ordinary circumstances, in the ordinary manner, may cer- 
tainly be supposed to be capable of inducing a change of 
operation to meet a sudden exigency, and one liable at any 
time to occur. It is certainly not more wonderful, nor se 
wonderful, that the bee should be induced to brace her 
comb, or the spider her web, when in danger, as that either 
should be able to construct her edifice originally, at the pre- 
cise angle employed. It must be remembered, moreover, 
that, in the great majority of cases, brute instinct shows no 
iuch capacity of adaptation to circumstances. 

The Question before us. — We are ready now to inquire 
bow far that which we call instinct in the brute, differs from 
that which we call intelligence in man. Is it a difference in 
hind^ or only in degree ? A glance at the history of the doo^ 
trine may aid us here. 



INSTINCT ;^o3 

Early Views, - From Aristotle to Descartes, philosc p he rs 
took the latter view. They ascribed to the brute a degree 
of reason, such as would be requisite in man, were he to do 
the same things, and proceeding on this principle, they attri- 
buted to animals an intelligence proportioned to the wants 
of their nature and organization. This principle, it need 
hardly be said, is an assumption. It is not certain that the 
same action proceeds from the same principle in man, and in 
the brute ; that whatever indicates and involves intelligence 
and reason, in the one case, as its source, involves the same 
in the other. This is a virtual jt?6^^^^o principiL It assumpg 
the very point in question. It may be that what man doea 
by virtue of an intelligent, reflecting, rational soul, looking 
before and after, the brute does by virtue of entirely a' dif- 
ferent principle, a mere unintelligent impulse of his nature, 
a blind sensation, prompting him to a given course. This is 
the question to be settled, the thing to be proved or dis- 
proved. And if the view already given of the character of 
brute instinct, is correct, the position now stated as possible, 
may be regarded as virtually established. 

View of Descartes. — Descartes, perceiving the error of 
previous philosophers, went to the opposite extreme, and 
resolved the instinct and action of the brute into mere mech- 
anism, a principle little different from that by which the 
weight moves the hands of the cloek. The brute performs 
the functions of his nature and organization, just as the 
puppet moves hither and thither by springs hidden within, 
of which itself knows nothing. The bird, the bee, the ant, 
the spider, are so organized, such is the hidden mechanism 
of their curious nature, that at the proper times, and under 
the requisite conditions, they shall build, each its own pro- 
pel structure ; and perform, each, its own proper work and 
ofllce. So doing, each moves automatically, mechanically. 

Locke and his Disciples, — Differing, again, from this 
view, which certainly ascribes too little, as the opposite 
theory ascribes too much to the brute, Locke, Condillac, and 



334 INSTINCT. 

thiir disciples in France and England, took the ground xntd 
the actions of the brute which seem to indicate intelligence, 
are to be ascribed to the power of habit, and to the law of 
association. The faculties of the brute, as indeed of man, 
resolve themselves ultimately into impressions from without. 
Nothing is innate. The dog scents his prey, and the beaver 
builds his dam, arid the bird migrates to a warmer chmo, 
from the mere force of habit, unreflecting, unintelligeut„ 
But how, it may occur to some one to ask, happens such a 
habit to be formed in the first place ? How happens the 
poor insect, just emerging from the egg, to find in himself 
all requisite appliances and instruments for capturing his 
prey ? How happens the bee always, throughout all its 
generations, to hit upon the same contrivance for storing its 
honey, and not only so, but to select out of a thousand dif- 
ferent forms, and difierent possible angles, always the same 
one ? And so of the ant, the spider, etc. And if this is a 
matter of education, as it certainly is not, then how came the 
first bee, the first ant, spider, or other insect, to hit upon so 
admirable an expedient ? 

The Scotch Philosophers. — - On the other hand, Reid, 
Stewart, and the Scotch philosophers generally, departing 
widely from the merely mechanical view, have ascribed to 
instinct some actions which are properly automatic and in- 
voluntary, as the shutting of the eyelid on the approach of 
a foreign body, the action of the infant in obtaining its food 
from the mother's breast, and certain other like movements 
of the animal organization, which, according to recent dis- 
coveries in physiology, are to be attributed, rather to the 
fiimple reflex action of the nerves and muscles. This is not 
properly instinct. 

Question returns. — Among these several views, where 
then, lies the truth ? Unable to coincide with the merely 
mechanical theory of Descartes, or with the view which re- 
Bolves all into mere habit and association, with Locke an*! 
Condillac, shall we fall back upon the ancient, and for a lonj^' 



TNSTINCr. 335 

time universally prevalent, view which makes instinct only a 
lower degree of that intelligence which, in man becomes 
reason and reflection ? This we are hardly prepared to do. 
The well-known phenomena and laws of instinct, its essen- 
tial characteristics as developed in the preceding pages, seem 
to point to a diflerence in kind and not merely in degree. 

Heasons for this Opinion, — 1. The Brute incapable of 
high Cultivation, — To recapitulate briefly the points of 
difference : If instinct in the brute were of the same nature 
with intelligence in man, if it were, properly speaking, intei^ 
Kgence^ the same in kind, differing only in degree, then, it 
ought, as in man, to be capable of cultivation to an indelinite 
extent, capable of being elevated, by due process of train- 
ing, to a degree very much superior to that in which it first 
presents itself. Now, with certain insignificant exceptions, 
Buch is certainly not the case. No amount of training oi 
culture ever brings the animal essentially above the ordin- 
ary range of brute capacity, or approximates him to the 
ievel of the human species. 

2. Brute does not improve by Practice, — On this theory 
the brute ought, moreover, to improve by practice, which, 
for the most part, certainly he does not. The spider lay^ 
out its lines as accurately and constructs its web as well, 
and the bee her comb, and the bird her nest, on the first at- 
tempt, as after the twentieth or the fiftieth trial. There is 
no progress, no improvement. Its skill, if such it may be 
called, is a fixture. There is nothing of the nature ol 
science about it, for it is of the essential nature of all intelli 
gent action to improve. 

3. Does not adapt itself to Circumstances, — If it were 
of the nature of intelligence, it ought uniformly and invari- 
ably to adapt itself to changing circumstances, and not to 
keep on working blindly in the old way, when such proced 
ure is no longer of use. It is not intelligence, but mere 
blind impulse, in the beaver, that leads him to build his dam 
on a dr> floor or the pavement of a riourt-yard. 



336 INSTINCT. 

4. Opposite "View proves too much, — It is furthermore 
to be noticed, that the theory under consideration, while it 
inscribes to the brute only a lower degree of intelligence, in 
ii-eality places him, in some respects, far beyond man in point 
of intellect. If the instinct of the brute be intelligence at 
all, it is intelligence which leaves his prouder rival, man, in 
many cases, quite in the shade. No science of man can vie 
with the mathematical precision of the spider or the bee ii 
the practical construction of lines and planes that shall en- 
close a given angle. The engineer must take lessons of the 
ant in the art of running lines and parallels. To the same 
humble insect belongs the invention of the arch and of the 
dome in architecture. Many of the profoundest questions 
and problems of science are in like manner virtually solved 
by those creatures that possess, it is claimed, only a loioer 
degree of intelligence than man. The facts are inconsistent 
with the theory. The theory either goes too far, or not far 
enough. If instinct is intelligence at all, it is intelligence, in 
some respects at least, superior to man's. 

For reasons now stated, we must conclude that the intel- 
ligence of the brute diifers in kind^ and not in degree 
merely, from that of man. 

Faculties wanting in the Srute, — If now the inquiry oe 
raised, what are the specific faculties which are wanting in 
the brute, but possessed by man, in other words, where rung 
the dividing line which marks off the domain of instinct 
from that of intellect, we reply, beginning with the differ- 
ences which are most obvious, the brute is, in the first place, 
not a moral and religious being. He has no moral nature, 
no ideas of right and justice, none of accountability, and of 
a higher power. He is, moreover, not an (Esthetic being. 
lie has n-^ taste for beauty, nor appreciation of it. The 
hoi'se, with all his apparent intelligence, looks out upon the 
most enchanting landscape as unmoved by its beauty as the 
carriage which he draws. He has no idea, no cognizance o\ 
uhe beautiful. The faculty of original conception, whif.b 



INSTINCT. Sa*? 

furnishes man with ideas of this nature, seems to ]>e wanting 
in the brute. He is, furthermore, not a scientific being. He 
does not understand the principles by which he himself 
works. He makes tiO progress or improvement, accordingly, 
in the application of those principles, but works as well first 
as last. He learns nothing by experience. Certain grand 
rules and principles do indeed lie at the foundation of his 
work, but they have no sul^ective existence in the bruto 
himself. Now the faculties which constitute man a scientific 
being are those which, in the present treatise, we have 
grouped together under the title of reflective. These seem 
to be wanting in the brute. He never classifies, nor ana- 
lyzes, never forms abstract conceptions, never generalizes, 
judges, nor reasons, never reflects on what is passing around 
him ; never, in the true sense of the word, thinks. 

Further Deficiency, — Here many, perhaps most, who 
nave reflected upon the matter at all, would place the divid- 
ing line between man and the brute, denying him the pos- 
session of reason and reflection, the higher intellectual pow- 
ers, but allowing him the other faculties which man enjoys. 
We must go further, however, and exclude imagination 
from the list of brute faculties. Having no idea of the beau- 
tiful, nor any power of forming abstract conceptions, the 
ideals^ according to which imagination shapes its creations, 
are wholly wanting, and imagination itself, the faculty of the 
ideal, must also be wanting. 

The Power to perceive and rerrteniber. — But has the 
brute the power of perception and memory, the only two 
distinct remaining faculties of the human mind ? If we 
distinguish, as we must, the physical from the strictly intel- 
lectual element, in perception by the senses, the capacity to 
receive impressions of sense, from the capacity to under- 
stand and know the object, as such, from which the impres- 
sions proceed, while we must admit the former, we should 
question the existence of the latter in the brute. To know 
OT understand the objects of sense, to distinguish them as 

15 



838 INSTINCT. 

Buch, from each other, and from self as the percemng sub 
ject, is an attribute of intelligence in its strict and propel 
sense, an attribute of mind. If the brute possesses it, ho 
possesses as really a mind, though not of so high an order, 
as man. 

The dividing Line. — Now it is just here that we are 
compelled to place the line of division between the brute and 
man, between instinct and intellect. The brute has senses, 
as man; in some respects, indeed, moie perfect than his. 
Objects external make impressions upon his senses ; his eye, 
his ear, his various organs of sense, respond to these impres- 
sions. In a word, he has sensations, and those senfeatioria 
are accompanied, as all sensations in their nature are, and 
must be, with consciousness, that is, they are felt. But this 
does not necessarily involve what we understand by con- 
eciousness in its higher sense, or self -consciousness. The 
brute has, we believe, no knowledge of himself as such, no 
self-consciousness^ properly speaking; does not distinguish 
between self as perceiving, and the object as perceived, has 
iQO conception of self as a separate existence distinct from 
the objects around him, has, strictly speaking, no ideas, no 
thoughts, no intelligent comprehension of objects about him; 
has sensations^ but no perceptions in the true sense of the 
word, since perception involves the distinction of subject and 
object, or self-consciousness. These distinctions are lost to 
the brute, blindly merged in the one simple consciousness of 
physical sensation. He feels, but does not think, does not 
understand. Sensation takes the place of understanding and 
reason with him. It is his guide. To the impressions thus 
received, his nature blindly responds, he knows not how or 
why. He is so constituted by his wise and benevolent 
Maker, that sensation being awakened, the impulses of his 
nature at once spring into play, and prompt irresistibly to 
action, and to such action as shall meet the wants of the 
bemg. There is no need for intelligence to supervene, as 
with man The brute teeis and acts, Man feels, thinks ^ and 



INSTINCT. 33c, 

acts. The Creator has provided, for, the former, a substitute 
which takes the place of intellect, and secures by blind, yet 
unerring impulse, the simple ends which correspond to hia 
simpler necessities, and his humbler sphere. 

Man^s Superiority. — Herein lies man's mastership and 
dominion over the brute. He has what the brute has not, 
mtellect, mind, the* power of thought, the power to under- 
etand and know. Just so far as he fails to grasp this high 
prerogative, just so far as he is governed by sensation and 
its corresponding impulses, rather than by intelligence and 
reason, just in such degree he lays aside his superiority, and 
sinks to the sphere of the brute. Thus, in infancy and early 
life, there is little difference. Thus, many savage and un- 
educated races never rise far above the brute capacity, are 
mere creatures of sensation, impulse, instinct. 

In one Respect inferior, — In one respect, indeed, man, 
destitute of intelligence or failing to govern himself by its 
precepts, sinks helow the brute. He has not the substitute 
for intelligence which the brute has, has not instinct to guide 
him, and teach him the tiue and proper bounds of indulgence, 
but giving way to passion and inclination, without restraint, 
presents that most melanchc ly spectacle on which the sua 
in all his course, ever looks down, a man under the dominion 
of his own appetites, incapable of self-government, lost to all 
nobleness, all virtue, all self respect. 

Memory in the JBrute, — It may still be asked, does not 
the brute remember f It is the office of memory to replace 
or represent what has been once felt or perceived. It sim- 
ply reproduces, in thought, what has once passed before the 
mind. It originates nothing. Whatever, then, of mtelli- 
gence was involved in the' original act of perception and 
sensation, so much and no more is involved in the replacing 
those sensations and perceptions. If in the original act 
there was nothing but simple sensation, without intellectual 
apprehension of the object, without self-consciousness or dis- 
tinction of subject from object, then, of course, nothing moro 



340 INSTINCT. 

than this will be subsequently reproduced. Mere images oi 
phantasms of sensible objects may reappear, as shadows flicker 
and dance upon the wall, or as such images flit before us in 
our dreams. The memory of the brute is, probably, of this 
nature, rather a sort of dream than a distinct conception of 
past events. What was not clearly apprehended at first, 
will not be better understood now. Failing, in the first in- 
stance, to distinguish self from the object external, as the 
Bource of impressions, there can be no recognition of that 
distinction when the object reappears, if it ever should, in 
conception. The essential element of memory, which con-' 
nects the object or event of former perception with self as 
the percipient, must, in such a case, be wanting. 

The Brute associates rather than remembers. — What is 
usually called memory in the brute, is not, however, so much 
his capacity of conceiving of an absent object of sense, as his 
recognition of the object when again actually present to his 
senses. The dog manifests pleasure at the appearance of his 
master, and the horse chooses the road that leads to his for- 
mer home. This is not so much memory as association of 
ideas or rather of feelings. Certain feelings and sensations 
are associated, confusedly blended, with certain objects. 
The reappearance of the objects, of course, reawakens the 
former feelings. Thus, the whip is associated with the sen- 
sation experienced in connection mth it. So, too, a horse 
which has once been frightened by some object beside the 
road, will manifest fear on subsequently approaching the 
same place, although the same object may no longer be 
there. The surrounding objects which still remain, and 
which were associated with the more immediate object of 
fear in the first instance, are sufficient to awaken, on their 
reappearance, the former unpleasant sensations. 

A being endowed with intelligence and reason would con 
nect the recurring object, in such a case, with his own former 
experience as the perceiving subject, would recall the time 
and the circump^ances of the event and its connection with 



INSTINCT. 341 

his personal history. This would be, properly, an act of 
memory. 

But there is no reason to suppose that such a process takes 
place with the brute. We have no evidence of any thing 
more, in his case, than the recurrence of the associated con- 
ception or sensation, along with the recurrence of the object 
which formerly produced it. Given, the object a, aceom. 
panied with surrounding objects J, c, c?, and there is produced 
a given sensation, y. Given, again, at some subsequent time, 
the same object a, or anyone of the associate objects 5, c, d^ 
and there is at once awakened a lively conception of the 
same sensation y. 

Summary of Results. — This is, I think, all we can, with 
any certainty, attribute- to the brute. He has sensations, 
and so far as mere sense is concerned, perceptions of objects, 
as connected with those sensations, but not perception in 
the true sense as involving intellectual apprehension. These 
sensations and confused perceptions recur, perhaps, as images 
or conceptions, in the absence of the objects that gave rise to 
them, and as thus reappearing, constitute what we may call 
the memory of the brute ; but not, as with us, a memory 
which connects the object or event with his own former his 
tory, and the idea of a personal self as the percipient. l<et 
the object, however, reappear, and the previous sensation 
associated therewith, is reawakened. 

This, I am aware, is not the view most commonly enter- 
tained of briite intelligence. We naturally conceive of the 
brute as possessing faculties similar to our own. The brute, 
m turn, were he capable of forming such a conception, would, 
probably, conceive of man, as endowed vrith capacities like 
tiifl own. In neither case is this the right conception. 



/ 



CHAPTER II. 

MIND AS AFFECTED BY CERTAIN STATES OB TEE BKAIN 

AND NERVOUS SYSTEM. 

Statement, — There are certain mental phenomena con- 
nected with the relation which the mind sustains to the 
nervous organism, and depending intimately on the state of 
that organism, which seem to require the notice of the psy- 
chologist, though often overlooked by him ; I refer to the 
phenomena of sleep, dreams, somnambulism, and insanity. 
So far as the activity of the mind is involved in these states 
or phenomena, they become proper objects of psychological 
inquiry. They present many problems difficult of solution^ 
yet not the less curious and interesting, as phases of mental 
activity hitherto little understood. 

View sometvmes taken by Physiologists, — It becomes 
the more important for the psychologist to investigate these 
phenomena, inasmuch as views and theories little accordant 
with the true philosophy of the mind have sometimes been 
put forth by physiologists, in attempting to explain the 
phenomena in question. They have viewed the cerebral 
apparatus as competent of itself to produce the phenomena of 
thought, as self -acting^ in the absence of the higher principle 
of intelligence which usually governs its operations, carry- 
mg on by a sort of automatic action, the processes usually 
ascribed to the mind or spiritual principle, while conscious- 
ness and volition are entirely suspended. Consoiousness, 
in fact, is nothing but sensation, and thought a mere function 
i»f the brain. This is downright materialism, a doctrine ut- 
terly subversive of the very existence of that which we call 
mind or soul in man. If the cerebral organization is com- 
petent of itself during sleep to carry on those operations 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM:. ^43 

\rhicb in waking moments are ascribed to the spiritual ele- 
ment of our being, if thought is a function of the brain, as 
digestion is of the stomach, what need and what evidence 
of any thing nnore than merely cerebral action at any time? 
What, in fact, is the mind itself but cerebral activity, and 
what is man, with all his higher powers, but a mere anL 
mated organism ? 

It becomes important, then, to account for the phenomena 
under consideration in some way more consistent with all 
just and true notions of the nature and philosophy of 
mind. 

Distinction of normal and abnormal States, — Of these 
phenomena, while all may be regarded as intimately con- 
nected with and dependent on the state of the brain and 
nervous system, some seem to proceed from a normal, others 
fi'om an abnormal and disordered state of the nervous and 
particularly the cerebral organism. Of the former class, are 
sleep and dreams ; of the latter, somnambulism, the mes- 
meric state, so called, and the various forms of disordered 
mental action, or insanity. 

§ L — Sleep. 

Meaning of the Term.. — What is sleep ? Will the name 
itself afford any solution of this problem ? Like most 
names of familiar things, we find the word descriptive of 
some particular circumstance or phase, some one prominent 
characteristic of the thing in question, rather than a deji 
nition — much less an explanation — of the thing itself. 

The word sleep, from schlafen^ as the Latin somnit4 
from supinus^ refers to the supine condition and appearance 
of the body when in this state ; the relaxing of the muscles, 
the falling back or sinking down of the frame, if unsup. 
ported. This is the first and most obvious effect to the eye 
of an observer, of the condition of sleep as regards the 
body. Further than this the word gives us no light. 



544 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

1. Sleep involves primarily Loss of Consciousness, — WTiat 
theu, fulther than this, is sleep ? If we observe somewhat 
closely, and with a view to scientific arrangement, the difiTer 
ent aspects or phenomena that present themselves as consti- 
tuting that state of body and mind which we call sleep, the 
primary and most obvious fact, I apprehend, is loss of con^ 
8cious7iess, of the me. Not perhaps of all consciousness, 
for we seem still to exist, but of self-consciousness, of the 
me as related to time, and place, and external circumstance 
We lose ourselveSy as a common but most exact expression 
describes it. 

We are not at the Time aware of this Loss, — Of course, 
sleep consisting primarily in loss of consciousness, we are 
not conscious of the fact that we sleep, for this would be a 
co7isciousness that we were unconscious. Illustrations of 
this fact are of frequent occurrence. You are of an evening 
getting weary over your book. You are vaguely conscious 
of that weariness, amounting even to drowsiness ; you find 
it difficult to follow the course of thought, or even to keep 
the line, but have no idea that you are at length actually 
asleep for the moment, till the sudden fall of the book awak- 
ens you. Nay, one who has been vigorously nodding for five 
minutes will, on recovering himself, stoutly deny that he 
has really been asleep at all ; the truth is, he was not con- 
scious of it ; we never are, directly. 

T7iis results from what ? — This loss of consciousness re- 
sults from the inactivity of the bodily senses. It is these 
that afibrd us the data for a knowledge of self in relation 
to external things. In sleep these avenues of communica 
ticn with the external world are shut up, and we silently 
drop off*, and, as it were, float away from all conscious con 
nection with it. We no longer recognize our relations to 
time and space, nor even to our own bodies, which, as 
material, come under those relations ; for it is by the senses 
alone that we get these ideas. So far as consciousness of 
t<hese relations is concerned, we exist in sleep as in deatln 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 345 

out of the laws and limits of time and space^ and irrespec- 
tive of the body and of all material existence. Mental ac- 
tion, however, doubtless goes on, and we are conscious of 
thought and of the feeling of the moment, but of nothing 
further. All self-consciousness is gone. 

An Affection primarily of the nervous System, — Sleep, 
then, would seem to be primarily an affection of the nervous 
system ; not of the reproductive — that goes on as usual, and 
even with increased vigor ; nor yet of the muscular — that 
is still capable of action ; but only of the nervous. That 
gets weary ; by continued use, its vital active force is ex- 
hausted, it needs rest, becomes inactive, gradually drops off, 
and so there results this loss of consciousness, of which I 
have spoken. It is strictly, then, the nervous system, and 
not the whole body that sleeps. 

Different Senses fall Asleep successively, — The different 
senses become inactive and fall asleep, not all at once, but 
successively. First, sight goes. The eye-lids droop, and 
close. Taste and smell probably next. Touch, and hearing, 
are among the last to give way. Hence, noises so easily 
disturb us, when falling asleep. Hence, too, we are most 
easily awaked by some one repeating our name, or by som^ 
one touching us. These senses are also the first to waken 
One sense may be asleep and another awake. You may 
still hear what one is saying that sits near you, when already 
the eye is asleep. So in death, one hears when no longer 
able to see or to speak. 

2. Loss of personal Control, — Accompanying this loss ol 
self-consciousness is the loss of personal control^ ^. e., the 
control of the will over the bodily organization. This fol- 
lows from the inactivity of the senses and of the nervous 
system, for it is only through that, and not by direct agency 
of the will, that we, at any time, exert voluntary power over 
the body. When that system becomes exhausted, and ita 
force is spent, so that it can no longer furnish the motive 
\ ower, nor execute the commands of the higher intelligence 

15* 



846 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

the will i.o longer maintains its empire over the physical 
organization, its little realm of matter, its control is sus- 
pended, its sceptre falls, and it realizes for the time the 
story of the enchanted palace on which a magic spell had 
fallen, suddenly arresting the busy tide of life, and sealing 
up, on the instant, the senses of king, courtiers, and attend- 
ants, in the unbroken sleep of ages. 

Indications of approaching Sleep, — One of the first in- 
dications, accordingly, of the approach of sleep, is the re- 
laxing of the muscles, the drooping of the eye-lid, the drop- 
ping of the head and of the arm, the sinking down of the 
body from an erect to a supine position. If in church, the 
bead seeks the friendly support of the pew in front, fortun- 
ate if it can secure itself there from the still further demands 
of gravitation. 

Analogous Cases. — In respect to the point now under 
consideration, the loss of control over the physical frame, 
the phenomena of sleep closely resemble those of intoxica- 
tion, and of fainting ; and for the same reason, in either 
case, ^. 6., the inactivity of the nervous system, which is the 
medium of voluntary power over the body. That inactiv- 
ity of the nervous system is produced in the one case by 
natural, in the other by unnatural causes, but the direct 
effect is the same as regards the loss of voluntary power. 
The same effects are also produced in certain diseases, and 
eventually by death. 

3. Loss of Control over the Mind. — Analogous to this 
is the loss of voluntary control* over the mental operations, 
which is in fact, so far as the mind is concerned, the essen- 
tial feature and characteristic <>f sleep. Mental action still 
goes on, there is reason to suppose ; in many cases we know 
that it does ; but the thoughts come and go at their own 
pleasure, without regulation or control. It is not in our 
power to arrest a certain thought, and ^^ our minds upon it 
for the time, to the exclusion of others, as we can do ii the 
vakitig moments, and wbVh constitutes, in fact, the chief 



STAliiS OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 347 

control and power we have over our thoughts, nor can we 
dismiss, and throw off, an unpleasant train of thought, a 
disagreeable impression, however much we may desire to 
be rid of it. We are at the mercy of our own thoughts 
and casual associations, which, in the ungoverned, sponta- 
neous play of the mind's own inherent energy, and guided 
only by its own native laws, produce the wildest and stran- 
gest phantasmagoria, having to us all the semblance of 
reality, while we are, in truth, mere passive spectators of 
the scene. 

Faculties of Mind not suspended in Sleep, — It has been 
supposed by some that the faculties of the mind are, in part 
or wholly, suspended in sleep, especially the higher faculties 
more immediately dependent on the will. So long as mental 
activity goes on, however, — and there is no evidence that it 
ever entirely ceases in sleep — so long there is thought, and 
so long must that thought and activity be exerted in some 
particular direction, and on some particular object. We 
cannot conceive of the mind as acting or thinking, and not 
exercising any of its faculties, for what is a faculty of the 
mind but its capacity of acting in this or that way or mode, 
and on this or that class of subjects. It may be perception, 
or conception, or memory, or imagination, or judgment, or 
reasoning, or any other faculty that is for the moment 
active ; it must be some one of the kno\vQ faculties of the 
mind, unless, indeed, we suppose some new faculties to be 
then developed, of whose existence we are at other times 
unconscious. 

Mental Action modijied hy certain Causes in Sleep, -— 
The faculties will, however, be materially modified in their 
action during sleep, by the causes already named ; chiefly 
these two : 1st. the entire suspension of voluntary control 
over the train of thought ; 2d. the loss of personal conscious- 
cess as regards especially the bodily organization, and its 
present relations to time, and space, and all sensible objects. 
In consequence o^ the former our thoughts will come and 



^48 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

go all unregulated and disconnected ; there will be no co 
herence ; the slightest analysis will suffice for the associating 
principle ; we shall be hurried on and borne away on the 
rushing tide of thought, as a frail passive leaf swept on the 
bosom of the rapids ; we shall whirl hither and thither as 
in the dance of the witches ,•. we shall waken in confusion, 
and seek to recover the reins of self-control, only to lose 
them again and be swept on in the fearful dance. 

Want of Congruity oioing to what, — In consequence of 
the latter cause — the loss of sensational consciousness and of 
our relations to sensible objects — there will be an entire want 
of fitness and congruity in our mental operations. The laws 
of time, and space, and personal identity, will be altogether 
disregarded, and we shall not be conscious of the incon- 
gruity, nor wonder at the strangest and most contradictory 
combinations. Here, there, everywhere, now this and now 
that. The scene is in the valley of the Connecticut, and 
anon on the Ural mountains, or the desert of Arabia, and 
we do not notice the change as any thing at all remark- 
able. Now we are walking up the aisle of the church, in 
garments all too scanty for the proprieties of the occasion, 
and now it is a wild bull that is racing after us, and the 
transition fi'om one to the other is instantaneous. Why 
should it not be, for it is by the senses alone that we are 
brought into conscious relation to the external world, and 
60 made cognizant of the laws of time and space, and those 
senses being now locked in oblivion, what are time and space 
to us? 

Tlie Causes now named a sufficient Explanation of the 
Phenomena. — The causes already named will sufficiently 
account for the strange and distorted action of the various 
mental faculties as exercised in sleep. Memory, e. ^., will give 
us the past with variations ad libitum ; things will appear to 
us, and events will seem to transpire, and forms and faces 
familiar will look out upon us, not as they really are, or ever 
were. We talk with a former friend, without the thought 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYcJTElVr. 34JI 

once occurring to us that lie has been dead these many 
years. Impression there is, feeling, idea, fancy, association 
of all these, but hardly memory, or even imagination, much 
less judgment or reasoning. So it would seem at first. A 
closer insoection, however, will show us that there is in 
reality, in this spontaneous play of the mind, the exercise 
of all these faculties, only so modified by causes now named 
as to present strange and uncouth results. 

Mental Faculties not immediately dependent on the Will, 
— If any of the mental faculties can be shown to be entirely 
dependent on the will for their activity and operation, so as 
to have no power to act except by its order or permission, 
then it would follow that when the will is no longer in pos- 
session of the throne, when its sway is for the time sus- 
pended as in sleep, the faculties thus dependent on it must 
lie inactive. But wit)i regard to most if not all mental opera- 
tions, we know the reverse to be true. They are capable ol 
spontaneous^ as well as voluntary action. Nay, some of them, 
it would seem, are not subject, in any case, directly to its con 
trol. It is not at our option whether to remember or for 
get, whether to perceive surrounding objects, whether such 
or such a thought shall, by the laws of association, follow 
nexl in the train of ideas and impressions. Some mental 
operations are more closely connected with and admit of a 
more direct interference on the part of the will than others, 
but it cannot be shown, I think, that any faculty is so far 
dependent on the will as not to be capable of action, irre- 
spective of its demands. Indeed, facts seem to show that 
where once a train of mental action has been set in opera- 
tion by the will, that action goes on, for a time, even when 
the will is withdrawn, or held in abeyance, as in sleep, or 
profound reverie. 

Whence this Suspension of Power 0/ the Will, — The 
question may occur, whence arises this suspension of the 
power of the vill over the mental opera.tions in sleep ? What 
produces it? Do^3 it, like the loss of voluntary power ovei 



350 MIND AS AFFECTED B if 

the physical frame, result from the inactivity of the K^rvoas 
apparatus ? The fact that it always accompanies this, and 
is found in connection with it, that whatever produces the 
latter seems to be the occasion, also, of the former, as in 
the case of disease, dehrium, mesmeric influence, stupefying 
drugs, inebriation, etc., and that the degree of the one, 
whether partial or complete, is in proportion to the degree 
of the other — these facts seem to me to favor the idea now 
suggested. 

Summary of Results. — These, then, seem to be the prin- 
cipal phenomena of sleep : loss of sensational consciousness, 
loss of voluntary power over the body, loss of voluntary 
power over the operations of the mind. 

Exhaustion of the nervous System. — Sleep, then, appears 
to be primarily an affection of the nervous system, the result 
of its exhaustion. By the law of nature, it cannot continue 
always active ; repose must succeed to effort. Hence, the 
more* rapid the exhaustion of the nervous system, from any 
cause, the more sleep is demanded. This we know to be the 
fact. The more sensitive the system, as in childhood, or with 
the gentler sex, as in men of great sensibility also, poets, 
artists, and others, the more sleep. On the other hand, those 
sluggish natures which allow nothing to excite or call into 
action the nervous system, sleep from precisely the opposite 
cause ; not the exhaustion of nervous activity, but its abso- 
lute non-existence. If both our systems, the animal and the 
vegetative or nutritive, should sleep at once, says Ranch, 
there would be nothing to awaken us. That would be 
death. " In sleep, every man has a world of his own," says 
Ileraclitus ; " when awake, all men have one in common.** 
Sleeping and waking, it has been beautifully said by another 
are the ebb and flo^d of mind and matter on the ocean of 
oui life. 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 35I 

§ II. — Dreams. 

Resume of previous Investigation, — It has been shown 
in the preceding section, that sleep is primarily and chiefly 
an affection of the nervous system, in which, through ex- 
haustion, the senses become inactive, and, as it were, dead, 
while, at the same, the nutritive system and the functions 
essential to life go on ; that in consequence of this inactivity 
of the sensorium, there results, 1. Loss of consciousness, so 
fer, at least, as regards all connection with, and relation to, 
external things ; 2. Loss of voluntary power over the physi- 
cal and muscular frame ; 3. Loss of voluntary control over 
the operations of the mind ; the mind still remaining active, 
however, and its operations going on, uncontrolled by the 
will. 

We are now prepared to take up, more particularly, thai 
specific form of mental activity in sleep, called dreaming ; a 
Btate which admits of easy explanation on principles already 
laid down. 

A Dream^ what. — What, then, is a dream f I reply, it is 
any mental action in sleep, of which, for any reason, we are 
afterward conscious. This is not the case with all, perhaps, 
with most mental action during sleep. Senses and the will 
are inactive, then, for the most part, and whatever thoughts 
and impressions may be T\Tought out in the laboratory of the 
mind, whatever play of forces and wondrous alchemy may 
there be going on, when the controlling principle that pre 
sides over and directs its operations is withdrawn, are, for 
the most part, never subsequently reported. Let the sensi- 
tivity be partially aroused, however, let some disturbing 
cause come in to prevent entire loss of sensibility, or let the 
conceptions of the mind present themselves with more than 
usual vividness and force of impression, and what we then 
think may afterward be remembered. This is the philosophy 
of dreams. What is thus remembered of our thoughts in 
sleep, we call a dream, more especially applying the term to 
such of our thoughts and conceptions in sleep, as have some 



852 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

degree of coherence and connection between themselves, so 
as to constitute a sort of unity. 

Sources of our Dreams, — Our dreams take shape and 
character from a variety of circumstances. They are not 
altogether accidental nor unaccountable ; and even when we 
cannot trace the connection, there is reason to suppose that 
such connection exists between the dream, and the state of 
the body, or of the mind, at the time, as, if known, would 
account for the shape and complexion of the dream. The 
principal sources, or, perhaps, it were more correct to say, 
modifying influences of our dreams are, 1, Our present bodily 
sensations, and especially the internal state of the physical 
system, and, 2, Our previous waking thoughts, dispositions^ 
and prevalent states of mind. 

Illustrations of the first, — As to the first of these modi- 
fying causes, instances of its operation will probably occur 
to every one from his own experience. You find yourself 
on a hard bed, or, it may be, have thrown yourself into some 
uncomfortable position, and you dream of broken bones or 
of the rack. The band of your robe buttons tightly about 
the neck, and you dream of hanging. You have taken a 
late supper of food highly seasoned and indigestible, and in 
your dreams a black bear very heavy and huge, quietly seats 
himself on your chest, or, as a military officer once dreamed, 
under similar circumstances, the prince of darkness sits cross- 
legged over your stomach, with the Bunker Hill monument 
in his lap. The instance related by Mr. Stewart, of the gen- 
tleman, who, sleeping with bottles of hot water at his feet, 
dreamed that he was walking along the burning crater of 
Mount ^tna, is in point here. Here the bodily sensation 
of heat upon the soles of the feet suggests the idea of a situ 
ation in which such a sensation would be likely to occur, and 
this idea blending with the sensation which is permanent and 
real, assumes, also, the character of reality, and the dream 
shapes itself accordingly. So when a window falls, or some 
fudden noise is heard, if it do not positively awaken you so 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 353 

far as to make known the real cause, you hear the sound, 
the sensorium partially aroused, mistakes it, perhaps, for the 
Bound 0/ a gun, and instantly you are in the midst of a battle 
at sea, or a fight with robbers. To such an extent are our 
dreams modified by sensible impressions of this sort, that it 
is possible, by skillful management, to shape and direct, to 
some extent, at least, the dreams of another as you will. 
An instance is related of an oflSicer who was made, in thia 
way, in his sleep, to go through with all the minutia of a 
duel, even to the firing of the pistol which was placed in his 
hand, at the proper moment, the noise of which awoke him. 
This was simply an acted dream. 

Latent Disease. — Not unfrequently, some physical dis- 
order, incipient or latent, of which we may not be aware in 
our waking moments, makes itself felt in the state of sleep, 
when the system is more susceptible of internal impressions, 
and thus modifies the dreams. In such cases, the dreamb 
may serve as a sort of i7idex of the state of the physical sys- 
tem, and somewhat, doubtless, of the apparently prophetic 
character of certain dreams may be accounted for in thiss 
way. 

The second Source, — A second source, if not of our dreams 
themselves, at least of the peculiar shape and character 
which they assume, is to be found in our previous thoughts, 
and prevalent mental occupations and dispositions. We faU 
asleep, and mental action goes on much as before, in what- 
ever direction and channel it had already received an impulse. 
Whatever has made the deepest impression on us through 
the day, has longest or most intently occupied us, repeats 
itself the moment we lose our consciousness of surrounding 
objects. The mind goes on with the new and strange spec- 
tacle, or with the unfinished problem, and unsolved intricate 
study of the d\),y or of the night hour ; and not seldom is 
the train of thought resumed and pursued to some purpose. 
On waking in the morning, we find little difi&culty in com- 
pleting a demonstration or solving a difficulty which Had 



554 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

appealed insurmountable when we left it the pre\ious night 
Now the truth is, we did not leave it the previous night. It 
occupied us in our sleep. The brain was busy with it, it may 
be, all the night. It is solved in the morning, not because the 
mind is fresher then, but because it has been at work upon 
It through the night. Sometimes we are conscious of this 
on waking, and can dimly recall the severe continuous men- 
tal toil which went on while we slept. Usually, I suppose, 
we have no consciousness of it, and our only evidence of it 
IS the well-known law and habit of the mind, to run in its 
worn and latest channels, together with the often observed 
fact that the difficulty previously felt is, somehow, strangely 
solved. 

Further Illustration of the same Principle, — Condorcet ia 
not the only mathematician who has received, in sleep, sug- 
gestions which led to the right solution of a problem that 
he had been obliged to leave unfinished on retiring for the 
night ; nor is Franklin the only statesman who has, in dreams, 
reached a satisfactory conclusion respecting some intricate 
political movement. However this may be, there can be 
no reasonable doubt that our previous mental occupation, 
our prevalent state and disposition of mind, our habits of 
thought and habits of feeling, determine and shape the com- 
plexion of our dreams. They have a subjective connection, 
are by no means so disconnected with us and our real his- 
tory, so much a matter of hap-hazard, as one may suppose^ 
It was not without reason that President Edwards took 
notice of his dreams as affording an index of the state of h^ 
heart, and his real native propensities. They are the vane 
that shows which way the mind is set. Who will say that 
the dreams of Lady Macbeth, those dreams of a guilty con- 
science, are not among the most truthful of the portraitures 
of the g Tat master dramatist ? 

Native Talent then shows itself. — Not only our native? 
disposition and prevalent cast of thought betray themselves 
in dreams, but, as a certain writer has remarked, oar nativa 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 355 

talents show out in those moments of spontaneous mental 
action. Talents >fhich have had no opportunity to develop 
themselves, owing to our education and professional pursuits, 
take their chance and their time when we sleep, and we ar^ 
poets, artists, orators, whatever nature designed, whatevei 
the trammelled mind longs, but longs in vain, to be in oui 
waking moments. 

Incoherency of Dreams, — The incoherency of our dreams 
has been sufficiently accounted for in what I have previously 
said. It is not, I think, owing cniefly, as Upham supposes, 
to our loss of voluntary power and control over our thoughts 
during sleep, though it is quite true that we have no such 
control. The truth is, we are not at the time aware of any 
such incoherency. It cannot, of course, be owing then to 
our loss of voluntary power, since no increase of such powei 
would enable us to repair a defect which we are unconscious 
of, but is owing entirely to another cause already mentioned, 
viz., that in sleep we lose our relatio7i to things around us, 
lose our place, and our time, and hence, retain no standard 
of judging as to what is, and what is not, consentaneous and 
ftt, self-consistent and coherent. 

Apparent Reality, — Nothing is more remarkable in 
areams than their apparent reality. The scenes, actions, 
and incidents, all stand out with peculiar distinctness, art* 
projected as images into the air before us, and have not at all 
the semblance of any thing merely subjective. This has been, 
by some, ascribed to the fact that there is nothing to dis- 
tract or call off the attention from the conceptions of the 
.mind in dreams ; we are wholly in them, and hence they 
appear as realities. I do not find, however, that in propor- 
tion as my attention in waking moments is wholly absorbed 
m any train of thought, those conceptions manifest any such 
tendency to project themselves, so to speak, into objective 
riiality. They are still mere conceptions, only more vivid. 
I am inclined, therefore, to attribute the seeming reality of 
dreams to another source. We are uccustom^w to regard 



856 MIND AS AFFECTEF BY 

every thing as objective^ which is out oi the reach aiid con 
:rol of our will, which comes and goes irrespective of us and 
our volition. Now, such we find to be the prime law of 
cerebral action in sleep. Of course, then, we are deceivea 
mto the belief that these conceptions over which we have no 
control, are not conceptions, but perceptions^ realities. 

JEstimate of Time. — Nothing has seemed to some writers 
more mysterious than the entire disproportion between the 
real and apparent time of a dream. I refer to the fact 
that our dreams occupy frequently such very minute por- 
tions of time, while they seem to us to stretch over such 
long continued periods. An instance is related of an officer 
confined in the prisons of the French Revolution, who was 
awakened by the call of the sentry changing guard, feU 
asleep again, witnessed, as he supposed, a very long and 
very horrible procession of armed and bloody warriors, de- 
filing on horseback down a certain street of Paris, occupy- 
mg some hours in their passage, then awoke in terror in 
season to hear distinctly the response of the sentry to the 
challenge given before the dream began. The mind in 
such cases, say some, operates more rapidly than at other 
times. There is no evidence of that. Mr. Stewart has 
suggested, I think, the right explanation. As our dreams 
seem to us real, and we have no means of estimating time 
otherwise than by the apparent succession of events, th*^ 
conceptions of the brain, that is, our dreams, seem to us to 
take up just so much time in passing as the events them- 
selves would occupy were they real. This is perfectly a 
natural result, and it fully accounts for the apparent anomaly 
in question. 

Prophetic Aspect, — Are dreams sometimes prophetic^ 
and how are such to be accounted for ? Cicero narrates a 
remarkable instance of what would seem to be a prophetic 
dream. I refer to the account of the two Arcadians who 
came to Megara and occupied different lodgings. The one 
f)f these appeared twice, in a h*eam, to the other, first im- 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. rifi? 

plorinn^ help, tiien murdered, and informing his comrade that 
his body would be taken out of the city early in the morn- 
ing, by a certain gate, in a covered wagon. Agitated by the 
dream, the other repairs at the designed time to the ap- 
pointed place, meets the wagon, discovers the body, arrests 
the murderer, and delivers him to justice. 

Other Instances of the like Nature, — Another instance, 
perhaps equally striking, is narrated in the London Times, 
A Mr. Williams, residing in Cornwall, dreamed thrice in the 
same night that he saw the Chancellor of England killed, 
m th6 vestibule of the House of Commons. The dream so 
deeply impressed him that he narrated it to several of his 
acquaintance. It was subsequently ascertained that on the 
evening of that day the Chancellor, Mr. Perceval, was as- 
sassinated according to the dream. Now, this was cer 
tainly a remarkable coincidence. Was it any thing more ? 
Was it merely an accidental thing — a matter of chance -— 
that the dream should occur as it did, and should tally so 
closely with the facts ? But these are not singular instances. 
Many such are on record. 

Case related by Dr, Moore, — Dr. Moore, author of an 
interesting work on the use of the body in relation to 
the mind, narrates the following, as coming under his own 
observation. A friend of his dreamed that he was amus- 
big himself, as he was in the habit of doing, by reading 
the epitaphs in a country church-yard, when a newly made 
grave attracted his attention. He was surprised to find on 
the stone the name, and date of death, of an intimate 
friend of his, with whom he had passed that very evening 
in conversation. Nothing more was thought of the dream, 
however, nor, perhaps, would it ever have recurred to 
mind, had he not received intelligence, some months after- 
ward, of the death of this friend, which took place at tha 
very date he had, in his dream, seen recorded on the toml> 
stone. 

Cas€ related l?y Dr, Aiercrombie, — The case mentioneJ 



S58 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

by Dr. Abercombie is another of these remarkable cornci- 
dences. Two sisters sleeping in the same room adjoining 
that of a sick brother, the one awakens in affright, having 
dreamed that the watch had stopped, and that on mention- 
bg it to her sister, the latter replied, " Worse than that hap 
happened, for 's breath has stopped also." On examina- 
tion the watch was found going and the brother in a sound 
sleep. The next night the dream was repeated precisely as 
before with the same result. The next morning as one of the 
sisters had occasion to take the watch from the writing-desk 
she was surprised to find it had stopped, and at the same 
moment was startled by a scream from the other sister in the 
chamber of the sick man, who had, at that moment, expired 

Additional Cases. — Another instance of a similar nature 
is related, but I know iiot on how good authority. The 
sister of Major Andre, it is said, dreamed of her absent 
brother, one night, as arrested and on trial before a court 
martial. The appearance of the officers, their dress, etc., 
was distinctly impressed on her mind ; the room, the relative 
position of the prisoner and his judges, were noticed ; the 
general nature of the trial, and its result, the condemnation 
of her brother. She woke deeply impressed. Her feara 
were shortly afterward confirmed by the sad intelligence of 
her brother's arrest, trial, and execution, and, what is re- 
markable, the facts corresponded to her dream, both as re- 
spects the time of occurrence, the place, the appearance of 
the room, position, and dress of the judges, etc. Washing- 
ton and Knox were particularly designated, though she had 
never seen them. 

Another instance is related of a man who dreamed that 
the vessel in which his brother was an officer, and, in part, 
owner of the cargo, was wrecked on a certain island, and 
the vesi^.el lost, but the hands saved. He was so impressed 
that he went directly and procured an extra insurance of 
five thousand dollars on his brother's portion of the property. 
By the next arrival news came that the vessel was wrecked. 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. ,359 

at the time and place of which the man ho.d dreamed, and 
the marinei's saved. 

Coincidences, — Now it is perfectly easy to call all these 
things coincidences. They certainly are. But is it certain, 
or it is probable, that they are mere coincidences ? To caU 
them coincidences, and pass them off as if* they were easily 
and fully accounted for in that way, is but a shallow con- 
<iealment of our ignorance under a certain show of philoa 
ophy. It is but a conjecture at the best; a conjecture, 
moreover, which explains nothing, but leaves the mystery 
just as great as before ; a conjecture which is by no means 
the most probable of all that might be made, but, on the con- 
trary, one of the most improbable of all, as it seems to me. 
Mark, the cases I have now mentioned do not come under 
any of the laws or conditions laid down as giving rise or modi- 
fication to our dreams. They are not suggested, so far as it 
appears, by any present bodily sensation on the part of the 
dreamer, nor was there any reason in the nature of the case 
why any such event, much less conjunction of events, should 
be apprehended by the dreamer in his waking moments. It 
was not the simple carrying out of his waking thoughts. 
Doubtless many dreams regarded as prophetic, may be 
explained on these principles. They are the result of our 
present sensations or impressir^rtis, or of the excited and anx- 
ious state of mind and train of thought during the day. But 
not so in the cases now cited. 

I^ot necessary to suppose them Supernatural. — Shall we 
believe, then, that dreams are sometimes prophetic ? We 
have no reason to doubt that they may be so. Are they, in 
that case, supernatural events ? No doubt the future may 
be supernaturally communicated in dreams. No doubt it has 
been, and that not in a few cases, as every believer in the 
fiacred Scriptures must admit. But this is not a necessary 
supposition. A dream may be prophp'*^ic, yet not super- 
natural. Some law, not fully known to us, may exist, by 
*rii'tue of which the nervous system, when in a highly excited 



300 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

Btato, becomes susceptible of impressions not ordinarily re 
ceived, and is put in communication, in some way to U8 
mysterious, with scenes, places, and events, far distant, so as 
to become strangely cognizant of the coming future. Can 
any one show that this is impossible ? Is it more improb- 
able than that the cases recorded are mere chance coinci- 
dences ? Is it not quite as likely to be so, as that the event 
should correspond, in so many cases and so striking a man- 
oer, with the previous dream, and yet there be no cause^ 
whatever^ for the correspondence ? Is it not as reasonable, 
even, as to suppose direct divine interposition to reveal the 
future, the possibility of which interposition I by no means 
deny, but the reason for which does not become apparent ? 
Is it not possible that there may be some natural law or 
agent of the sort now intimated, some as yet unexplained, 
but partially known, condition of the physical system, when 
in a peculiarly sensitive state, of which the modus operandi 
IS not yet understood, but the existence of which is indicated 
in cases like those now described ? That this is the true 
explanation, I by no means affirm ; I make the suggestion 
merely to indicate what, it seems to me, may be a possible 
solution of the problem. 

Possible Modes of accounting for the Facts. — Evidently 
there are only these four possible solutions. 1. To deny the 
facts themselves, i. 6., that any such dreams occurred, or at 
least, that they were verified in actual result. 2. To call 
them accidental coincidences. 3. To admit a supernatural 
agency. 4. To explain them in the way suggested. Our 
choice lies, as it seems to me, between the second and the 
last of these suppositions. 

§ III. — Somnambulism. 

Relation to the magnetic Sta,te. — Somnambulism or «»leep 
walking, is called, by some writers, natural magnetic sle^p. 
They suppose it to differ from the state ordinarily called 



STATES OF THE ITteRVOtrS SYSTEM: 361 

mesmeric, chiefly in this, that the former is a natm\al, anrl 
the latter an artificial process. 

Heseniblance of this to other cognate Phenomena. — We 
ehall have occasion, as we proceed, to notice the very close 
resemblance between dreaming, somnambulism, mesmerism, 
and insanity, all, in fact, closely related to each other, char- 
acterized each and all by one and the same great law, and 
passing into each other by almost imperceptible gradations. 

Method proposed. — It will be to the purpose, first to 
describe the phenomena of somnambulism, then to inquire 
whether they can be accounted for. 

Description. — The principal phenomena of somnambuhsm 
are the following: The subject, while in a state of sound 
Bleep, and perfectly unconscious of what he does, rises, walks 
about, finds his way over dangerous, and, at other times, in- 
accessible places, speaks and acts as if awake, performs in 
the dark, and with the eyes closed, or even bandaged, opera- 
tions which require the closest attention and the best vision, 
perceives, indeed, things not visible to the eye in its ordinary 
waking state, perhaps even things absent and future, and 
when awakened from this state, is perfectly unconscious of 
what has happened, and astonished to find himself in some 
strange and unnatural position. 

An Instance narrated. — - A case which fell under the ob- 
servation of the Archbishop of Bordeaux, when a student in 
the seminary, is narrated in the French Encyclopedia. A 
young minister, resident there, was a somnambulist, and to 
satisfy himself as to the nature of this strange disease, the 
Archbishop went every night into his room, after the young 
man was asleep. He would arise, take paper, pen, and ink, 
and proceed to the composition of sermons. Having written 
a page in a clear legible hand, he would read it aloud from 
top to bottom, with a clear voice and proper emphasis. If 
a passage did not please him, he would erase it, and winto 
the correction, plainly, in its proper place, over the erased 
line or word. All this was done without any assistance from 



562 MIND AS AFFECTED Br 

tlie eye, which was evidently asleep ; a piece of pasteboard 
interposed between the eye and the paper produced no in- 
terruption or inconvenience. When his paper was exchanged 
for another of the same size, he was not aware of the change,- 
but when a paper of a different size was substituted, he at 
once detected the difference. This shows that the sense of 
tact or feeling was active, and served as a guiding sense, 

OthefT Cases of a similar Nature, — Similar cases, almost 
without number, are on record, in which much the same 
phenomena are observed. In some instances it is remarked 
that the subject, having written a sentence on a page, returns, 
and carefully dots the i's, and crosses the t's. These phe- 
nomena are not confined to the night. Persons have fallen 
into the magnetic state, while in church, during divine ser- 
vice, have gone home with their eyes closed, carefully avoid- 
ing obstacles in their way, as persons or carriages passing ; 
and have been sent, in this state, of errands to places several 
miles distant, going and returning in safety. 

An amusing incident is on record of a gentleman who 
found that his hen-roost was the scene of nightly and alarm- 
ing depredations, which threatened the entire devastation 
of the premises, and what was strange, a large and faithful 
watch-dog gave no alarm. Determined to ascertain the true 
state of the case, he employed his servants to watch. Dur- 
ing the night the thief made his appearance, was caught, 
after much resistance, and proved to be the gentleman hint' 
self in a state of sound sleep, the author of all the mischief. 

A remarhahle Instance, — Another case is also related, 
which presents some features quite remarkable. In a cer 
tain school for young ladies, I think in France, prizes had 
been offered for the best paintings. Among the competitor! 
was a young and timid girl who was conscious of her in- 
feriority in the art, yet strongly desirous of success. For a 
time she was quite dissatisfied with the progress of her work, 
hut l>y and by began to notice, as she resumed her pencil in 
ibe morning, that something had been added to the woik 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS ijYSTKM. 363 

nnoe she last touched it. This was noticed for some time, 
Rnd quite excited her curiosity. The additions were evi- 
dently bj a superior hand, far excelling her own in skill and 
workmanship. Her companions denied, each, and severally, 
all knowledge of the matter. She placed articles of furniture 
against her door in such a way that any one entering would 
be sure to awaken her. They were undisturbed, but still 
the mysterious additions continued to be made. At last, 
her companions concluded to watch without, and make sure 
that no one entered her apartment during the night, but 
still the work went on. At length it occurred to them to 
watch her movements, and now the mystery was explained. 
They saw her, evidently in sound sleep, rise, dress, take her 
place at the table, and commence her work. It was her own 
hand that, unconsciously to herself, had executed the work 
m a style which, in her waking moments, she could not aj> 
proach, and which quite surpassed all competition. The 
picture, notwithstanding her protestations that it was not 
her painting, took the prize. 

The Question, — How is it now, that in a state of sleep, 
v\^ith the eye, probably, fast closed, and the room in darkness, 
this girl can use the pencil in a manner so superior to any 
thing that she can do in the day time, with her eyes open, 
and in the full possession and employment of her senses and 
her will ? 

Several Things to he accounted for,- — Here are, in fact, 
several things to be accounted for. How is it that the som- 
nambulist rises and moves about in a state of apparently 
sound sleep ? How is it that she performs actions requir- 
ing often a high degree of intelligence, and yet without 
apparent consciousness? How is it that she moves fear- 
I'Bssly and safely, as is often the case, over places where 
she could not stand for a moment, in her waking state, 
without the greatest danger ? How is it that she can see 
without the eye, and perform actions in utter darkness, re- 
<uiring the nicest attention, and the best vision, and noi 



364 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

only do tliem, but in such a manner as even to surpass what 
can be done by the same person in any other state, under 
the most favorable circumstances ? 

Firsts the Movement. — As to the first thing — the move- 
ment and locomotion in sleep — it may be accounted for in two 
ways. We may suppose it to be wholly automatic. This is 
the view of some eminent physiologists. The conscious soul, 
they say, has nothing to do with it, no knowledge of it. 
The will has nothing more to do with it, than it has with 
the contraction of a muscle, or irritation in an amputated 
limb. 

Objection to this View, — For reasons intimated already, 
we cannot adopt the automatic theory. It seems to us sub- 
versive of all true science of the mind. The body is self 
moved in obedience to the active energy of the nervous or- 
ganism, and this organism again, acts only as it is acted upon 
by the mind that animates, pervades, and controls that or- 
ganism. In the waking state, this mental action, and the 
consequent nervous and muscular activity, are under the 
control of the will. In sleep, this control is, for the time, 
suspended, and the thoughts come and go as it may chance, 
subject to no law but that of the associative principle. The 
mind, however, is still active, and the thoughts are busy in 
their own spontaneous movement. To this movement, the 
brain and nervous system respond. That the brain itself 
thinks, that the nerves and muscles act, and the limbs move 
automatically, without the energizing activity of the mind, 
is a supposition purely gratuitous, inconsistent with all the 
known facts and evident indications of the case, and at war 
with all just notions of the relation of body and mind. 

Another Tlieory, — Another, and much more reasonable 
supposition is, that the will, which ordinarily in sleep loseaf 
control both over the mind and the body, in the state of 
somnambulism regains, in some way, and to some extent, 
its power over the latter, so that the body rises and moves 
about Id accordance with the thought and feeling that hap 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 30^ 

pen, at the moment, to be predominant in the mind. There 
is no control of the will over those thoughts and suggestions : 
they are spontaneous, undirected, casual, subject only to the 
ordinary laws of association ; but for the time, whether 
owing to the greater vividness and force of these suggestions 
and impressions, or to the disturbed and partially aroused 
state of the sensorial organism, the will, acting in accordance 
with these suggestions of the mind, so far regains its power 
over the bodily organism, that locomotion ensues. The 
dream is then simply acted out. The body rises, the hand 
resumes the pen, and the appropriate movements and actions 
corresponding to the conceptions of the mind in its dream, 
are duly performed. 

The second Point of Inquiry. — This virtually answers 
the second question, how the somnambulist can perform ac- 
tions requiring intelligence, yet without apparent conscious- 
ness. 

There is, doubtless, consciousness at the time — there must 
be ; the thought and feeling of the moment are known to 
us at the moment. Not to be conscious of thought and 
feeling, is, not to think and feel. That the acts thus per- 
formed are not subsequently remembered, is no evidence 
that they were not objects of consciousness at the time of 
their occurrence. This is absence of memory, and not of 
consciousness. 

Not remembered, — Why they are not subsequently re- 
membered, we may, or may not, be able to explain. Not 
improbably, it may be owing to the partial inactivity of the 
Benses, and the consequent failure to perceive the actual re- 
lations of the person to surrounding objects. But to what- 
ever it may be owing, it does not prove that the mind is, for 
the time, unconscious of its own activity, for that is impoo- 
Bible. 

Third Question, — As to the third question, how the 
Bomnambulist can safely move where the waking person 
cannot, as along the edge of precipices, and on the roofi 



866 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

of houses, the explanation is simple and easy. The eye is 
closed. The sense of touch is the only guide. Now the 
foot requires but a space of a few inches for its support, that, 
given it knows nothing further, asks nothing beyond. It 
is the eye that informs us at other times of the danger be 
yond, and so creates, in fact, the present danger. You walk 
safely on a two-inch plank one foot from the ground. The 
same effort of the muscles will enable you to walk the same 
plank one hundred feet from the ground, if you do not 
know the difference. This the somnambulist, with closed 
eye, and trusting to the sense of feeling alone, does not 
recognize. 

A Question still to be answered. — But the most difficult 
question remains. How is it that the sleep-walker in utter 
darkness, reads, writes, paints, runs, etc., better even than 
others can do, or even than he himself can do at other times 
and with open eyes; How can he do these things without 
seeing ? and how see in the dark and with the organs of 
vision fast locked in sleep. The facts are manifest. Not so 
ready the explanation. I can see how the body can move 
and with comparative safety, and even how the cerebra'i 
action may go on in sleep, without subsequent remembrance. 
But to read, to write, to paint, to run swiftly when pursued 
through a dark cellar, without coming in contact with sur- 
rounding objects, are operations requiring the nicest powei 
of vision, and how there can be vision without the use of 
the proper organ of vision, is not to me apparent. It doea 
not answer this question to say that the action is automatic. 
That would account for one's seeing, but not without eyes^ 
The movement from place to place, according to the same 
theory, is also automatic ; that accounts for a person's walk- 
ing in sleep, but not for his walking without legs, No) 
does it solve the difficulty to say that in sleep the life of 
the soul is merged in that of the body; doubtless, but 
how can the body see without the eye, or the eye without 
light ? 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM 367 

Theory of a general Sense, — The only theory Ihat seema 
to offei even a plausible solution is that advanced by some 
German psychologists, and by Ranch in this country, of a 
general sense. The several special senses, they say, are all 
resolvable into one general sense as their source, viz., that 
of feeling. They refer us in illustration to the ear of the 
crab, to the eye of the fly and the snail, to the scent of flies, 
in which cases, respectively, we find no organ of hearing, or 
vision, or smell, but simply an expansion of the genera, 
nerve of sensation, or some filament from it, connecting with 
a somewhat thinner and more delicate membrane than the 
ordinary skin. This shows that our ordin&ry way of per- 
ceiving things is not the only way ; that special organs of 
vision, etc., are not needed in order to all perception, much 
less to sensation. It has been found by experiment that bats, 
after their eyes have been entirely removed, will fly about as 
before, and avoid all obstacles just as before. In these cases. 
It is contended, perception is merely feeling heightened^ the 
exercise of the general sense into which the special senses 
are severally merged. And this, it is said, may be the c^se 
with the somnambulist. 

Remarks on this TJieory, — There is doubtless truth iii 
the general statement now advanced. I do not see, how- 
ever, that it accounts for all that requires explanation in the 
case. It explains, perhaps, how, without the organ of vision, 
a certain dim, confused perception of objects might be fur- 
nished by the general sense, but not for a clearer vision and 
a nicer operation than the waking eye can give. This, td 
me, remains yet unexplained. Is there an inner conscious 
ness, a hidden soul-life not dependent on the bodily organ i 
nation, which at times comes it)rth into development and 
manifests itself when the usual relations of body and soul 
are disturbed and suspended ? So some have supposed, and 
so it may be for aught we know to the contrary, but tliis is 
only to solve one mystery by supposing another yet 
greatei. 



5Cb Ml^D AS AFFECTED BY 

Must admit what. — Whatever theory we adopt, or even 
if we adopt none, we must admit, I think, in view of the 
facts in the case, that in certain disordered and highly ex- 
cited states of the nervous system, as, e. g,^ when weakened 
by disease, so that ordinary causes affect it more powerfully 
than usual, it can^ and does sometimes^ perceive what^ under 
ordinary circumstances^ is not perceptible to the eye^ or to 
the ear / nay^ even dispenses with the use of eye and ear^ 
and the several organs of special sense. This occurs, as 
we have seen, in somnambulism, or natural magnetic sleep. 
We meet with the same thing also in even stranger forms, 
in the mesmeric state, and in some species of insanity. 

The m^ental Process obvious. — So far as regards the 
purely mental part of the phenomena, the operations of the 
mind in somnambulism, there is nothing which is not easily 
explained. In somnambulism, as indeed in all these states 
so closely connected — sleep, dreams, the mesmeric process, 
and even insanity — the will loses its controlling power over 
the train of thought^ and^ consequently .^ the thought or feel- 
ing that happens to be dominant gives rise to^ and entirely 
shapes^ thk^ actions that may in that state be performed. 
This dominant thought or feeling, in the case of the som- 
nambulist, is, for the most part, probably, the result of pre- 
vious causes ; a continuation of the former mental action, 
which, when the influence of the will is suspended and the 
senses closed, by a sort of inherent activity keeps on in the 
same channel as before. Of such action, the soul is itself 
probably conscious at the moment, but afterward no recol- 
lection of it lingers in the mind. 

§ IT. — Disordered Mental Action. 

Relation to other mental Phenomena. — • Closely allied to 
Bomnambulism, dreaming, etc., are certain forms of dis. 
ordered mental condition commonly termed insanity ; hav- 
mg this one element in common with the former the loss 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 359 

or suspension of all voluntary control over the train of 
thought. This must be regarded as the characteristic fea- 
ture and essential ground-work of the various phenomena 
in all these various states. 

Classification, — The forms of disordered mental action 
are various, and admit of some classification. Some are 
transient, others permanent, arising from some settled dis- 
order of the intellect, or the sensibilities. 

I. Transient Forms, — Of these, some are artificially pro- 
duced, as by exciting drugs, stimulants, intoxicating drinks, 
etc., others by physical and natural causes, as disease, etc. 

Delirium^ artificial. — The most common of these forms 
of disordered mental action is that transient and artificial 
state produced by intoxicating drugs and drinks. This is 
properly called defirium, and takes place whenever total or 
even partial inebriation occurs, whether from alcoholic or 
narcotic stimulants, as the opium of the Chinese, and the 
Indian hemp or hachish of the Hindoos. The same effects, 
substantially, are produced, also, by certain plants, as the 
deadly night-shade and others, and also by aconite. In all 
these cases the effect is wrought primarily, it would seem, 
upon the blood, which is brought into a poisonous state, and 
thus deranges the action of the nerves and the brain. The 
hachish or Indian hemp, which, in the East, is used for pur- 
poses of intoxication more generally, perhaps, than even 
opium, or alcoholic drinks, may serve as an illustration of 
the manner in which these various stimulants affect the 
senses. At first the subject perceives an increased activity 
of mind ; thoughts come and go in swift succession and 
pleasing variety ; the imagination is active — memory, fancy, 
reason, all awake. Gradually this mental activity increases 
and frees itself front voluntary control / attention to any 
special subject becomes difficult or even impossible ; ideas, 
etrange and wonderful, come and go at random with no appar- 
ent cause and by no known law of suggestion ; these absorb 
the attention until the mind is at last given up to them, and 

16* 



870 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

there is no further consciousness of the external thingSi 
while, at the same time, the patient is susceptible, as in the 
magnetic state, of influence and impression from without. 
How closely, in many respects, this resembles the state of 
the mind in somnambulism, mesmerism, and ordinary dream- 
ing, I need not point out. The mental excitement produced 
by opium is perhaps greater, and the images that throng the 
brain, and assume the semblance of reality, are more numer- 
ous and real. The subsequent exhaustion and reaction in 
either case are fearful. For illustration of this the reader is 
referred to the Confessions of an Opium Eater, by the ac- 
complished De Quincey. 

Delirium of Disease. — The ordinary delirium of disease 
is essentially of the same nature with that now described, 
differing rather in its origin, or producing cause, than in 
its effects. It comes on often in much the same way ; in- 
creased mental activity shows itself; attention is fixed with 
difficulty ; strange images, and trains of thought at once 
singular and uncontrolled by the will, come and go ; the 
mind at last is possessed by them and loses all control over 
its own movements. Every thing now, which the mind 
conceives, assumes the form of reality. It has no longer 
conceptions but perceptions. Figures move along the walls 
and occupy the room. They are as really seeny that is, the 
sensation is the same, as in any case of healthy and actual 
vision ; only the effect is wrought from within outward, 
from the sensorium to the optic nerve and retina, instead of 
the reverse, as in actual vision. Voices are heard also, and 
various sounds, in the same manner ; the producing cause 
acting from within outward, and not from without inward. 

Differs from Dreaming. — This state differs from dream- 
ing in that the subject is not necessarily asleep, and that it 
involves a greater and more serious disorder of the faculties, 
as well as of longer continuance. The illusions are perhaps 
also more decided, and more vividly conceived as external 
and real entities Like dreams, and unlike the conceptions 



STATES Oil THE NERVOUS SYSIUM, 371 

of the magnetic state, these ideas and illusions may be sub- 
sequently recalled, and in many cases are so ; the mind, 
however, finding it difficult still to believe that they were 
fictions^ and not actual occurrences. 

In dreaming, the things which we seem to see and hear 
are changes produced in the sensorium by cerebral or other 
influences. In delirium, the sensorium itself is disordered 
and produces false appearances^ spectres, etc. 

Mania. — That form of disordered mental action termed 
mania^ differs from that already described in that, along 
with the derangement of the intellect, there is more or less 
emotional disorder. The patient is strongly excited on any 
thing that at all rouses the feelings. There may be much 
or little intellectual derangement accompanying this excite- 
ment. The two forms, in fact, pass into each by a succes- 
sion of almost indefinable links. The main element is the 
same in each, L e., loss of voluntary control over the 
thoughts and feelings. Each is produced by physical 
causes, and is of transient duration. 

Power of Suggestion. • — In all these forms of delirium 
now described, whether artificial or natural, the mind is 
open to suggestions from without, and these become often 
controlhng ideas. Hence it is of imperative necessity that 
the attendant should be on his guard as to what he says or 
does in the presence of the patient. An instance in point 
is related by Dr. Carpenter, in which a certain eminent phy- 
sician lost a number of his patients in fever by theu* jump- 
ing from the window, a fact accounted for at once, when we 
come to hear that he was stupid enough to caution the at- 
tendants, in the hearing of his patients^ against the possibil- 
ity of such an event. 

II. Permanent Forms. — I proceed next to notice those 
more petmanent forms of mental disorder, commonly termed 
insanity, a term properly applied to designate those cases of 
abnormal mental activity in which there seems to be either 
some settled disorder of the intellect, as, e. g., when the 



372 MIND AS AFFECTED BY 

brain has been weakened by successive attacks ol mania, 
epilepsy, etc., or else some permanent tendency to disordered 
emotional excitement. 

Disorder of the Intellect. — Where the intellectual fac- 
ulties are disordered, the chief elementary feature of the 
case is the same as in those already noticed, viz.. Loss of 
voluntary control ocer the mental operations - — the psycholo- 
gical ground- work, as we have seen, of all the various forma 
of abnormal mental action which have as yet come under 
our notice. 

Memory affected. — In the cases now under considera- 
tion, the memory is the faculty that in most cases givea 
the first signs of failure, particularly that form of memory 
which is strictly voluntary, viz., recollection. In const>- 
quence of this, past experience is placed out of reach, can- 
not be made available, and therefore reasoning and judg- 
ment are deficient. The thoughts lose their coherency and 
connection, as they are thus cut loose from the fixtures of 
the past, to which the laws of association no longer bind 
them ; they come and go with a strange automatic sort of 
movement, over which the mind feels that it has little power. 
Gradually this little fades away ; the will no longer exercises 
its former and rightful control over the mental activities ; its 
sway is broken, its authority gone ; the mind loses control of 
itself, and, like a vessel broken from her moorings, swings 
sadly and hopelessly away into the swift stream of settled 
insanity. The mind still retains its full measure of activity, 
perhaps greatly increased ; but it acts as in a dream. All its 
conceptions are realities to it, and the actually real world, as 
it mingles with the dream and shapes it, is but vaguely and 
imperfectly apprehended through the confused media of the 
mind's own concej)tions. All this may be, and often is, real- 
ized, where there is entire absence of all emotional excite- 
ment. 

Not easily cured. — The condition now described is much 
less open to medical treatment than the mental states pre- 



STATES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. 373 

viously mentioned. Indeed, where there is insanity result- 
ing from settled cerebral disorder, there is very little hope 
of cure. Nature may in time recover herself ; she may not. 
This depends on age, constitution, predisposing causes, and 
a variety of circumstances not altogether under human 
control. 

Disordered Action of the Sensibilities. — Another form 
of insanity is that vrhich consists in, or arises from, not 
any primary disorder of the intellectual faculties, but a tend- 
ency to disordered emotional excitement. Sometimes this 
is general, extending to all the emotions. These cases re- 
q[uire careful treatment. The patient is like a child, and 
must be governed mildly and wisely, is open to argument 
and motives of self-control. In other cases, some one emo- 
tion is particularly the seat and centre of the disturbance, 
while the others are comparatively tranquil. In such case:^ 
the exaggerated emotion may prompt to some specific ac- 
tion, as suicide, or murder, etc. This is termed impulsive 
insanity. The predominant idea or impulse tyrannizes over 
the mind, and, by a sort of irresistible fatality, drives it on 
to the commission of crime. The patient may be conscious 
of this impulse, and revolt from it with horror ; there may 
be no pleasure or desire associated with the deed, but he is 
unable to resist. He is like a boat in the rapids of Niagara. 
So fearful the condition of man when reason is dethroned. 
and the will no lonp;ei master 



MENTAL PHILOSOPHY. 



DIVISION SECOND 



THE SENSIBILITIES. 



\ 



THE SENSIBILITIES. 



PRELIMINARY TOPICS. 



CHAPTER 1 

NATURE, DIFFICULTY, AND IMPORTANCE OF THIS 
DEPARTMENT OF THE SCIENCE. 

Previous Analysis. — In entering upon the investiga- 
tion of a new department of our science, it may be well 
to recur, for a moment, to the analysis and classification 
of the powers of the mind which has been already given 
in the introduction to the present volume. The facul- 
ties of the mind were divided in that analysis, it will be 
remembered, into three grand departments, the Intellect, 
the Sensibilities, and the Will ; the first comprising the va- 
rious powers of thinking and knowing^ the second oi feeling^ 
the third of willing. The first of these main divisions has 
been already discussed in the preceding pages. Upon the 
second we now enter. 

Difference of the two Departments. — This department of 
mental activity dififers from the former, as feeling differs 
from thinking. The distinction is broad and obvious. No 
one can mistake it who knows any thing of his own mental 
operations. Every one knows the difference, though not 
every one may be able to explain it, or tell precisely in what 
it consists. But whether able to define our meaning or not, * 
we are perfectly conscious that to think and to feel are dif 
ferent acts, and involve entirely different states of mind* 



378 THE SENSIBILITIES. 

The common language of life recognizes the distiucticn, alike 
that of the educated and of the uneducated, the peasant 
and the man of science. The literature of the world recog 
nizes it. 

Relation of the two. — As regards the relation of the two 
departments to each other, the intellect properly precedes 
the sensibility. The latter implies the former, and depends 
upon it. There can be no feeling — I speak, of course, of 
mental feeling, and not of mere physical sensation — without 
previous cognizance of some object, in view of which the 
feeling is awakened. Affection always implies an object of 
affection, desire, an object of desire ; and the object is first 
apprehended by the intellect before the emotion is awakened 
in the mind. When we love, we love something, when we 
desire, we desire something, when we fear, or hope, or hate, 
there is always some object, more or less clearly defined, that 
awakens these feelings, and in proportion to the clearness 
and vividness of the intellectual conception or perception of 
the object, will be the strength of the feeling. 

Strength of Feelings as related to Strength of Intellect, — 
The range and power of the sensibilities, then, in other 
words, the mind's capacity of feeling, depends essentially 
upon the range and vigor of the intellectual powers. Within 
certain limits, the one varies as the other. The man of 
strong and vigorous mind is capable of stronger emotion 
than the man of dwarfed and puny intellect, Milton, Crom- 
well, Napoleon, Webster, surpassed other men, not more in 
clearness and strength of intellectual perception, than in 
energy of feeling. In this, indeed, lay, in no small degree, 
the secret of their superior power. In the most eloquent 
passages of the great orators of ancient or modern times, it 
is not so much the irresistible cogency and unrelenting grasp 
of the terrible logic, that holds our attention, and casts its 
epell over us, as it is the burning indignation that exposes 
tbe sophistries, and tears to shreds the fallacies of an oppo« 
nent, and sweeps all argument and all opposition before it 



THE SENSIBILITIES. 379 

like a devouring fire. The orations of Demosthenes, of 
Burke, of Webster, furnish numerous examples of this. 

Influence of the Feelings on the Intellect, — On the other 
land, it is equally true that the state of the intellect in any 
case depends not a little on the nature and strength of the 
mind's capacities of feeling. A quick and lively sensibility 
is more likely to be attended with quickness and strengxh of 
intellectual conception ; imagination, perception, fancy,. and 
even reasoning, are quickened, and set in active play, by it« 
electric touch. 

A man vrith sluggish and torpid sensibilities, is almost of 
necessity a man of dull and slugglish intellect. A man with- 
out feeling, if we can conceive so strange a phenomenon, 
would be a man, the measure of whose intellectual capacity 
would be little above that of the brutes. 

Importance of this Department of the mental Faculties,'- • 
Such being the nature of the sensibilities, the importance of 
this department of mental activity becomes obvious at a 
glance. The springs of human action lie here. We find 
here a clue to the study of human nature and of ourselves. 
To understand the complicated and curious problem of hu- 
man life and action, to understand history, society, nations, 
ourselves, we must understand well the nature and philoso- 
phy of the sensibilities. Here we find the motives which set 
the busy world in action, the causes which go to make men 
what they are in the busy and ever changing scene of life's 
great drama. It is the emotions and passions of men which 
give, at once, the impulse, and the direction, to their energieSi 
constitute their character, shape their history and their des 
tiny. A knowledge of man and of the world is emphatically 
a knowledge of the human heart. 

Extract from. Brown, — The importance of this part ot 
our nature is weU set forth in the following passage from 
Dr. Thomas Brown : 

" We might, perhaps, have been so constituted, with re- 
spect to our intellectual states of mind, as to have had all the 



880 THE SENSIBILITIES. 

varieties of these, our remembrances, judgments, and crea 
tions of fancy, without our emotions. But without the emo 
tions which accompany them, of how little value would the 
mere intellectual functions have been ! It is to our vivid 
feelings of this class we must look for those tender regards 
which make our remembrances sacred, for that love of truth 
and glory, and mankmd, without which to animate and re- 
Ward us in our discovery and diffusion of knowledge, the 
continued exercise of judgment would be a fatigue rather 
than a satisfaction, and for all that delightful wonder which 
we feel when we contemplate the admirable creations of 
fancy, or the still more admirable beauties of the unfading 
model, that model which is ever before us, and the imitation 
of which, as has been truly said, is the only imitation that is 
itself originality. By our other mental functions, we are 
mere spectators of the machinery of the universe, living and 
inanimate ; by our emotions^ we are admirers of nature, lov- 
ers of man, adorers of God. * * * 

Less attractive Aspects, — " In this picture of our emotions, 
however, I have presented them in their fairest aspects; 
there are aspects which they assume, as terrible as these are 
attractive ; but even terrible as they are, they are not the 
less interesting objects of our contemplation. They are the 
enemies with which our mortal combat, in the warfare of 
life, is to be carried on ; and of these enemies that are to as- 
sail us, it is good for us to know all the arms and all the 
arts with which we are to be assailed ; as it is good for us 
to know all the misery which would await our defeat, as 
well as all the happiness which would crown our success, 
that our conflict may be the stronger, and our victory, there- 
fore, the more sure. 

" In the list of our emotions of this formidable class, is to 
be found every passion which can render life guilty and 
miserable ; a single hour of which, if that hour be an hou? 
of uncontrolled dominion, may destroy happiness forever, 
rind leave httle more of virtue than is necessary for giving 



M 



THE SENSi BILITIES 381 

all its Horror to remorse. There are feelings as blasting to 
every desire of good that may still linger in the heart of the 
frail victim who is not yet wholly corrupted, as those pois- 
onous gales of the desert, which not merely lift in whirlwinds 
the sands that have often been tossed before, but wither even 
the few fresh leaves, which on some spot of scanty verdure, 
have still been flourishing amid the general sterility." 

Difficulty of the Study. — With regard to the difficulty 
attending th? study of this part of our nature, a word seems 
necessary in passing. It has been supposed to constitute a 
peculiar difficulty in the way of the successful investigation 
of this department of mental activity, that the sensibilities 
are, in their very nature, of such an exciting character, as to 
preclude the calm, dispassionate observation and reflection 
so necessary to correct judgment. At the moment of exer- 
cising any lively emotion, as hope, fear, anger, etc., the 
mind is in too great perturbation to be in any condition 
for accurate self-observation, and when the excitement has 
subsided, the important moment has already passed. Mr 
Stewart has particularly noticed this difficulty in his Intro- 
duction to the Active and Moral Powers, and quotes Hume 
to the same effect. 

Not peculiar to thu Department of the Science, — The 
difficulty in question, however, is one which, in reality, per- 
tains to all mental science, and not to this department of it 
alone ; and so Hume, in the passage cited by Mr. Stewart, 
seems to intend. It is true that while we are under the influ- 
ence of any exciting emotion, we are in no mood, and in no 
suitable state to observe, with critical eye, the workings of 
our own minds ; neither are we in any condition to do so 
when engaged in the less exciting, but not less absorbing 
mtellectual occupation of reasoning, or imagining, or remem- 
bering. The moment we begin to observe ourselves as thusi 
engaged, the mind is no longer employed as before, the ex- 
periment which we wish to observe is interrupted, and in- 
stead of reasoning, imagining, or remembering, wo are onlv 



382 ANALYSrii AND CLASSIFICATION 

observing ourselves. Our only resource, in either case, is ti 
turn back and gather up, as well as we can from memory^ 
the data of our mental activity and condition while thus and 
thus employed. And this we can do with regard to the ac- 
tion of the sensibilities, as well as of the intellect, provided 
only the degree of emotion and excitement is not so great 
as to interfere with the present consciousness, and so with 
the subsequent recollection of what was passing in our own 
minds. 

Sources of Information, — Nor are we dependent entirely 
on self-observation. Our sources of information are twofold, 
the observation of our own minds, and of others. From the 
latter source ^ e may learn much of the nature of this de- 
partment of mental action. The sensibilities of others are 
more open to our inspection, and less readily mistaken, than 
their intellectual states. Nor do we meet, in this case, with 
the same difficulty ; for however excited and incapable ol 
self-inspection, at the moment, the subject of any strong 
emotion or passion may be, the spectator, at least, is able to 
observe the effect of that passion, and note its phenomena, 
with calm and careful eye. 



CHAPTER II. 

ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE SENSIBILITIEa 

Certain Distinctions may he noticed. — Including, undei 
the term sensibility, according to the definition already 
given, whatever is of the nature oi feeling^ in distinction 
from thought or cognition, and limiting the term also to 
feelings strictly mental^ in distinction from merely physical 
sensation, it is obvious that there are certain leading distinc- 
tions still to be observed in this class of our mental states, 
certai: great and strongly marked divisions or differences. 



OF THE SENSIBILITIES. 383 

by which we shall do well to be guided in our arrangement 
and classification of them. Our feelings are many and va- 
rious ; it is impossible to enumerate or classify them with 
perfect precision ; yet there are certain points of resemblance 
and difference among them, certain groups or classes into 
which they naturally divide themselves. 

A general Distinction indicated, — One general distinction 
lies at the outset, patent and obvious, running through all 
forms aud modes of sensibility, namely, the difference of 
agreeable and disagreeable. Every feeling is, in its very 
nature, and of necessity, one or the other, either pleasing or 
painful. In some cases the distinction is much more strongly 
niarked than in others ; sometimes it may be hardly per- 
ceptible, and it may be difficult to determine, so slight is the 
degree of either, whether the feeling under consideration 
partakes of the character of pleasure or pain; sometimes 
there is a blending of the two elements, and the same emo- 
tion is at once pleasing and painful to the mind that experi- 
ences it. But I cannot conceive of a feeling that is neither 
agreeable or disagreeable, but positively indifferent. Tho 
state of indifference is not an exercise of sensibility, but a 
simple want of it, as the very name denotes by which wo 
most appropriately express this state of mind, ^^ 6., apathy 
{a naOog). 

Simple JSmotions. — Passing this general and obvious dis- 
tinction, we find among our sensibilities a large class which 
we may denominate simple emotions. These comprise the 
joys and sorrows of life in all their varieties of modification 
and degree, according as the objects which awaken them 
differ. Under this class fall those general states of the mind 
which, without assuming a definite and obvious form, impart 
a tinge and coloring of joyousness or sadness to all our ac- 
tivity. Under this class, also, must be included the more 
specific forms of feeling, such as the grief or sorrow we feel 
at the loss of friends, sympathy with the happiness or sorrow 
of others, the enjoyment arising from the contemplation ci 



384 ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION 

persuasion of our own superiority, and the chagrin of thta 
reverse, the enjoyment of the ludicrous, of the new and won- 
derful, of the beautiful, to which must be added the satis- 
faction resulting from the consciousness of right action, and 
ihose vivid feelings of regret in view of the wrong, which, 
in their higher degree, assume the name of remorse, and fall 
like a chill and fearful shadow over the troubled path of 
earthly life. These all are simple emotions, and all, more- 
over, are but so many forms of joy and sorrow, varying as 
the objects vary which give rise to them. 

Further Difference of instinctive and rational Emotion, 
— It wiM be observed, however, that of these seveial speci- 
fic forms of simple emotion, some are of a higher order than 
the others. Such are those last named in the series, the 
feelings awakened in view of the ludicrous, in view of the 
new and wonderful, in view of the beautiful, and m view of 
the right, or, in general, the aesthetic and moral emotions. 
These, as seeming to possess a higher dignity, and to in* 
volve a higher degree of intellectual development, we may 
denominate the rational^ in distinction from the other simple 
emotions, which, to mark the difference, we may term in- 
stinctive. 

Emotions of a complex Character. — Passing on in our 
analysis, we come next to a class of emotions differing from 
that already considered, in being of a complex character. 
It is no longer a simple feeling of delight and satisfaction in 
the object, or the reverse, but along with this is blended the 
wish, more or less definite and intense, of good or ill, to the 
object which awakens the emotion. The feeling assumes an 
active form, becomes objective, and travels out from itself 
and the bosom that cherishes it, to the object which calls it 
forth. In this desire of good or ill to the object, the simple 
element of joy or sorrow, the subjective feeling, is often 
merged and lost sight of; yet it ever exists as an essential 
element of the complex emotion. 



OF THE SENSIBILITIES 385 

Further Subdivision of this Class. — Of this class ar^ 
the feehngs usually denominated affections^ which may be 
further subdivided into benevolent and malevolent^ according 
as they seek the good or the ill of their respective objects. 
As the simple emotions are all but so many modes and 
forms of the feeling of Joy, and its opposite, sorrow^ so 
the affections are but so many different modifications of 
the one comprehensive principle of love^ and its opposite, 
hate. 

Various Objects of Affection, — The affections vary as the 
objects vary on which they rest. Of the benevolent class, the 
more prominent are, love of kindred, of friends, of bene- 
i!actors, of home and country. Of the malevolent affections, 
so called, the more important are the feeling of resentment 
m view of personal injury, of indignation at the wrongs of 
others, the feeling of jealousy, and the like. 

The Passions, — These various affections, both malevol- 
ent and benevolent, when they rise above the ordinary de- 
gree, and become impatient of restraint, imperious, no 
longer under the control of reason and sober reflection, but 
themselves assuming the command of the whole man, and 
impelling him toward the desired end, regardless of other 
and higher interests, become the passions of our nature, 
with which no small part of the self-conflict and self-dis- 
cipline of this our mortal life is to be maintained. 

The Desires, — There is still another class of emotions, 
differing essentially in their nature from each of the two 
leading divisions already mentioned, that is, our desires. 
These are of two sorts. Those which are founded in the 
physical nature and constitution of man — as the desire of 
food, of muscular exertion, of repose, of whatever is adap- 
ted to the animal nature and wants — are usually denom- 
inated appetites : those, on the other hand, which take 
their rise from the nature and wants of the mind, rather 
than of the body, may be termed rational^ in distinction 
from animal desires or appetites. Of these the more im- 



886 ANALYSIS AND C L ASS IFI G ATIOK 

portant are the desire of happiness, of knowledge, rf power 
oi society, of the esteem of others. 

As joy has its opposite, sorrow, and love its opposite, hate, 
s<i also desire has its opposite, aversion ; and the objects of 
aversion are as numerous as the objects of desire. The de- 
sire of wealth has its counterpart, the aversion to poverty 
and want ; the desire of life and happiness sifcands oweit 
against the aversion to suffering and death. The two are 
«o to speak, the positive and negative poles of feeling. 

Hope and Fear, — There is yet another and important 
class of our emotions, having not a httle to do with the hap- 
piness or misery of life, casting its hghts and shadows over 
no small part of our little path from the cradle to the grave, 
our hopes and our fears. These, however important in 
themselves, are, nevertheless, but modifications of the prin- 
ciples of desire and aversion, and are, therefore, to be re 
ferred to the same general division of the sensibilities, 
Hope is the desire of some expected good, fear the aver- 
sion to some anticipated evil. 

Snm.inary of Classes, — To the ti:ree comprehensive 
classes now named, Simple JEmotions, Arfections^ and De- 
sires may be referred, if I mistake noJ;, the various sensibil- 
ities of our nature ; or, if the analysis and classification be 
not complete and exhaustive, it is at le.^st sufficiently minute 
for our present purpose. 



Historical Sketch of the leading Divisions of the 
Sensibilities adopted by different Writers. 

Important to Jcnoio the Principles of Division adopted 
by others, — The discussion of the present topic would be 
incomplete without a glance at the history of the same. It 
is of service, having obtained some definite results and con- 
clusions of our own, to know also what have been the views 
and conclusions of others upon the same matter. As witb 



OF THE SENSIBILITIES. 3S7 

regard to the intellectual powers, so also with respect to the 
sensibilities, diiferent principles of division and classification 
have been adopted by different writers. Our limits will 
allow us to glance only at the more important of these. 

General Principles of Classification, — Of those whc 
have written upon the sensibilities, some have placed them 
in contrast to each other, as hope and fear, love and hate^ 
etc., making this the principle of division ; others have classed 
them as personal, social, etc. ; others as relating to time, 
the past, the present, and the future ; others as instinctive 
and rational ; while most who have had occasion to treat oi 
this part of our mental constitution, have considered it with 
reference solely or mainly to the science of ethics or morals, 
and have adopted such a division and arrangement as best 
suited that end, without special regard to the psychology of 
the matter. 

Of the Greek Schools, — Among the Greeks, the Acade- 
micians included the various emotions under the four prin« 
cipal ones, fear, desire, joy, and grief, classing despair and 
aversion under grief, while hope, courage, and anger were 
comprised under desire. 

To denote the passivity of the mind, as acted upon, and 
under the influence of emotion, the Greeks named the pas- 
sions in general, ndOog^ suffering, whence our terms pathos, 
pathetic, etc., whence also the Latin passio and patior^ from 
which our word passion. The Stoics, in particular, desig^ 
nated all emotions as rra^?/, diseases, regarding them as dis- 
orders of the mind. 

Hartley'* s Division, — Among the moderns. Hartley di 
vides the sensibilities into the two leading classes oi grateful 
and ungrateful ones ; under the former, including love, 
desire, hope, joy, and pleasing recollection ; under the latter, 
the opposites of these emotions, hatred, aversion, fear, grief, 
displeasing recollection. 

Distinction of primitive and derivative, — Certain other 
English writers, asi Watts and Grove^ derive all the emotionfl 



388 ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION. 

ultimately from the three principal ones, admiration, lovej 
and hatred, which they term the primitive passions, all oth- 
ers being derivative. 

Division of Cogan, — Cogan^ whose treatise on the pas- 
Bions is a work of much interest, divides the sensioilities into 
passions J emotions^ and affections ^ by the fiist of theee 
terms designating the first impression which the mind re- 
ceives from some impulsive cause ; by the second, the more 
permanent feeling which succeeds, and which betrays itself 
by visible signs in the expressions of the countenance and 
the motions of the body ; while by affections, he denotes 
the less intense and more durable influence exerted upon the 
mind by the objects of its regard. The passions and affec- 
tions are, by this author, further divided into those which 
spring from self-love and those which are derived from the 
social principle. 

Classification of Dr, JReid, — Dr, Meid divides the active 
principles, as he terms them, into three classes, the mechani- 
cal^ the animal^ and the rational^ including, under the first, 
our instincts and habits, under the second, our appetites, 
imder the third, our higher principles of action. 

Of Stewart, — Dugald Stewart makes two classes, the 
instinctive ox implanted^ and the rational or governing prin- 
ciples, under the former including appetites^ desires^ and 
affections^ under the latter, self love and the moral faculty. 
The desires are distinguished from the appetites, in that they 
do not, like the former, take their rise from the body, nor 
do they operate, periodically, after certain intervals, and 
cease after the attainment of their object. Under the title 
of affections, are comprehended all those principles of oui 
nature that have for their object the communication of 
good or of ill to others. 

Of Brown, — Dr, Brown divides the sensibilities, to which 
be gives the general name of emotions^ with reference to 
their relation to time^ as immediate^ retrospective^ and pros- 
vective Under the f \rmer, he includes, as involvirg no 



OF THE SENSIBILITIES. ^8» 

moral feeling, cheerfulness and melancholy, wonder and its 
opposite, feelings of beauty and the opposite, feelings of sub- 
limity and of the ludicrous ; as in^^olving moral feeling, the 
emotions distinctive of vice and virtue, emotions of love and 
hate, of sympathy, of pride and humility. Under retrospect' 
iive emotion he includes anger, gratitude, regret, satisfac 
tion; under prospective emotion, all our desires and fears. 

Of Upham. — Prof. Upham divides the sensibilities into 
the two leading departments, the natural and the moral 
the former comprehending the emotions and the desires, 
the latter, the moral sentiments or conscience. Under the 
class of desires, he includes our instincts, appetites, pro- 
pensities, and affections. 

Of Hickok. — - Dr. Hickok classes the sensibilities under 
the departments of animal^ rational^ and spiritual suscep- 
tibility ; the former comprehending instincts, appetites, 
natural affections, self-interested feelings, and disinterested 
feelings ; the second, aesthetic, scientific, ethic, and theistic 
emotions ; while the latter or spiritual susceptibility differs 
from each of the others, in not being, Hke them, constitutional, 
but arising rather from the personal disposition and charac- 
ter. 

Remarks on the foregoing Divisions. — Our limits forbid, 
nor does the object of the present work require, a critical 
>aiscussion of these several plans of arrangement. 

It is but justice to say, however, that no one of these 
several methods of arrangement is altogether satisfactory, 
JThey are not strictly scientific. The method of Cogan, for 
example, derives all our sensibilities ultimately from the two 
principles of self-love, or desire for our own happiness, and 
the social principle, or regard for the condition and character 
of others ; which again resolve themselves, according to this 
author, into the two cardinal and primitive affections of love 
and hate. This division strikes us at once as arbitrary, and, 
therefore, questionable ; and, also, as ethical rather than 
psychologicaL There are many simple emotions which cau« 



'Sdij ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION 

not properly be resolved into either of these two principles^ 
On the other hand, the psychological distinction between 
the emotions and desires is overlooked in this arrangement. 
The same remarks. apply substantially to several of the other 
methods noticed. 

Objection to SteioarPs Division, — The arrangement of 
Mr. Stewart is liable to this objection, that the principle of 
self-love, and also the moral faculty, which he classes by 
themselves as rational principles, in distinction from the 
other emotions as implanted or instinctive principles, are 
as really implanted in our nature, as really constitutional 
or instinctive, as any other. Appetite, moreover, is but one 
form or class of desires ; self love is but another, i. e.y the 
desire of our own happiness. 

To Upham's Division. — The division of Mr. Upham is 
Btill more objectionable on the same ground. The natural 
and the moral sentiments, into which two great classes he 
divides the sensibilities, are distinct neither in fact nor in 
name ; the moral sentiments, so called, are as really and truly 
natural^ founded in our constitution, as are our desires and 
affections ; nor is the term natural properly opposed to the 
term moral as designating distinct and opposite things. The 
terms instinctive and rational, which Mr. Stewart employs, 
though not free from objection, much more accurately ex- 
press the distinction in view, could such a distinction be 
shown to exist. 

Difference of ethical and psychological Inquiry, — In a 
work, the main object of which is to unfold the principles 
of ethical science, it may be desirable to single out from the 
other emotions, and place by themselves, the principle of self- 
love, together with the social principle and the moral senti 
ments, as having more direct reference to the moral charac- 
ter and conduct. In a strictly psychological treatise, how- 
ever, in whicli the aim is simply to unfold, and arrange in 
their natural order, the phenomena of the human mind, such 
a prmciplo of classification is evidently inadmissible. The 



OF THE SENSIBILirrES. 391 

different operations and emotions of the mind must be 
studied and arranged, not with reference to their logical or 
ethical distinctions, but solely their j^?5ycAofo^^ca^ differences. 
Viewed in this light, the moral sentiments, so far as thej 
are of the nature of feeling or sensibility at all, and not 
rather of intellectual perception, are simple emotions, and 
do not inherently differ from any other feelings of the same 
class. The satisfaction we feel in view of right, and the pain 
in view of wrong past conduct, differ from the pain and 
pleasure we derive from other sources, only as the objects 
differ which call forth the feelings. They are essentially of 
the same class, the difference is specific rather than generic. 
They are modifications of the one generic principle of joy 
and sorrow, and differ from each other not so much as each 
differs from a desire^ or an affection of love or hate. 

Objection to Brown'' s Arrangement, — The classification 
of Dr. Brown, if not ethical, is, perhaps, equally far from 
being psychological. The relation of the different <3motions 
to time is an accidental, and not an essential difference, and 
it is, moreover, a distinction wholly inapplicable to far the 
larger portion of the sensibilities, viz., those which he calk 
imiiiediate emotions, or " those which arise without involv- 
ing necessarily any notion of time." This is surely hwiu^ a 
^on luccndo 



SENSIBILITIES. 



PART FIRST. 



SIMPLE EMOTIONS 



SIMPLE EMOTIONS. 
CHAPTER I. 

INSTINCTIYB EMOTIONS. 

Previous Analysis, — It will be recollected that in the 
analysis which has been given of the sensibilities, they were 
arranged under three generic classes, viz.. Simple Emotions, 
Affections, and Desires, all, however, having this in common, 
that they are in themselves agreeable or disagreeable, as 
states of mind, according as the object which awakens them 
is viewed as either good or evil. 

Nature of simple Emotions, — Of these, the simple emo- 
tions^ which are first to be considered, comprise, it will bo 
remembered, that large class of feelings which, in their 
various modifications and degrees, constitute the joys and 
sorrows of life. They may be comprised, with some latitude 
of meaning, under the general terms joy and sorrow, as 
modifications of that comprehensive principle or phase of 
human experience. They are awakened in view of an object 
regarded as good or as evil; an object, moreover, of present 
possession and present enjoyment or suffering; in which 
last respect they differ from desires^ which have respect 
always to some good, or apparent good, not in present pos 
session, but viewed as attainable. 

Division of simple Emotions, — Of these simple emotions, 
again, some may be called instinctive^ as belonging to the 
animal nature, and, to some extent, common to man with the 
brutes, in distinction from others of a higher order, involving 



396 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

or presupposing the exercise of reasob and the reflective 
powers. 

It is of the former class that we are to treat in the present 
chapter. 



|L — Or THAT GrENERAL StATB CF THE MiND KNOWK A9 CHEBSTUIr 
NESS; AND ITS OPPOSITE, MELANCHOLY. 

Nature of this Feeling. — There is a state of mind, of 
which every one is at times conscious, in which, without any 
immediately exciting cause, a general liveliness and joyous- 
ness of spirit, seldom rising to the definiteness of a distinct 
emotion, a subdued under-current of gladness, seems to fill 
the soul, and flow on through all its channels. It is not so 
much itself joy, as a disposition to be joyful ; not so much 
itself a visible sun in the heavens, as a mild, gently-dijffused 
light filling the sky, and bathing all objects in its serene 
loveliness and beauty. It has been well termed "a sort of 
perpetual gladness." 

Prevalence at different Periods ofLife.—T!\iQre. are those, 
of fortunate temperament, with whom this seems to be the 
prevailing disposition, to whom every thing wears a cheerful 
and sunny aspect. Of others, the reverse is true. In early 
life this habitual joyousness of spirit is more commonly prev- 
alent ; in advanced years, more rarely met with. Whether 
it be that age has chilled the blood, or that the sober ex- 
perience of life has saddened the heart, and corrected the 
more romantic visions of earlier years, as life passes on we 
are less habitually under the influence of this disposition. 
It is no longer the prevailing frame of the mind. In tho 
beautiful language of another, " We are not happy, without 
knowing why we are happy, and though we may still be sus- 
ceptible of joy, perhaps as intense, or even more intense, 
than in our years of unreflecting merriment, our joy musi 
arise from a cause of corresponding importance ; yet even 
down to the close of extreme old a^e there still recur occa 



INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 397 

sionally some gleams of this almost instinctive happiness, like 
a vision of other years, or like those brilliant and unexpected 
/ corruscations which sometimes flash along the midnight of 
a wintry sky, and of which we are too ignorant of the cir- 
cumstances that produce them, to know when to predict 
their return." 
^ ^ The opposite Feeling, — Corresponding to this general 
state of mind now described, is one of quite the opposite 
character — that habitual disposition to sadness which is 
usually called melancholy. Like its opposite, cheerfulness, it 
is rather a frame of mind than a positive emotion, and, like 
its opposite, it exists, often, without any marked and definite 
cause to which we can attribute it. It is that state in which 
subsiding grief, or the pressure of any severe calamity now 
passing away, leaves the mind, the grey and solemn twilight 
that succeeds a partial or total eclipse. It is, with many 
persons, the habitual state of mind, through long periods, 
perhaps even the greater part, of life. Not unfrequently it 
occurs that minds, of the rarest genius and most delicate 
sensibility, are subject to that extreme and habitual depres- 
sion of spirits which casts a deep gloom over the brightest 
objects, and renders life itself a burden. This state of 
habitual gloom and despondency, itself usually a form of 
disease, the result of some physical derangement, deepens 
sometimes into a fixed and permanent disorder of the mind, 
and constitutes one of the most pitiable and hopeless forms 
of insanity. Such was the case with the melancholy, but 
most amiable and gentle Cowper, 

Element of poetic Sensibility, — In its milder forms, 
the state of mind which I describe, constitutes, not un- 
frequently, an element of what is termed poetic genius, a 
melancholy arising from some sad experience of the troubles 
and conflicts of life, and from sympathy with the sufi'ering 
and sorrowing world, the great sad heart of humanity — a 
melancholy that, like the plaint of the ^olian harp, lends 
sweetness and richness to the music of its strain. Such are 



398 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

many of the strains of Tennyson ; such the deep under-cai 
rent of Milton's poetry ;( such, preeminently, the spirit and 
tone of John Foster, one of the truest and noblest specimens 
of poetic genius, although a writer of prose. A quick and 
lively sensibility, itself an inseparable concomitant of true 
genius, is not unfrequently accompanied with this gentler 
form of melancholy. The truly great soul that communes 
with itself, with nature, and with eternal truth, is no stranger 
^o this subdued yet pleasing sadness. It is this to which 
Milton pays beautiful tribute in the II Penseroso^ and which 
hu thus invokes : 

•* But hail, thou goddess, sage and holy, 
Hail, divinest Melancholy 1 
Come, pensive nun, devout and pure, 
Sober steadfast, and demure, 
AU in a robe of darkest grain 
Flowing vidth majestic train, 
And sable stole of Cyprus lawn 
Over thy decent shoulders drawn. 
Come, but keep thy wonted state, 
With even step and musing gait, 
And looks commercing with the skies, 
Thy rapt soul sitting in thiie eyes." 

N'ot inconsistent with Wit. — It should be remarked that 
the disposition of which we speak is not inconsistent with 
the occasional and even frequent prevalence of feeKngs of 
directly the opposite nature. A prevailing tendency to sad 
ness is not unfrequently associated with an almost equally 
prevailing tendency to emotions of the ludicrous. The same 
liveliness of sensibility which prepares the soul to feel keenly 
whatever in life is adapted to awaken sad and sober reflec- 
tions, also disposes it to notice quickly the little incongruities 
of character, the foibles and follies of mankind, in which a 
duller eye would detect nothing absurd or comical. It is, 
moreo\ er, the natural tendency of the mind to spring back, 
liko the bow unstrung, from one extreme of feeling to its 






INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 399 

opposite, and seek relief from its sadness in the lighter sal 
lies of wit. And so we have the melancholy Cowper singing 
John Gilpin, and the author of the Night Thoughts, in con 
versation, a jovial and witty man. 

§ II. — SOREOW AT Loss OF FRIENDa 

Differs from Melancholy, — Beside the general states af 
mind already described, and which can hardly be called dis- 
tinct emotions, there are certain specific forms of joy and sor- 
row which claim our attention. Prominent among these is 
the grief we feel at any great and sudden bereavement or 
calamity, as, for example, the loss of friends. This is a state 
of mind closely allied, indeed, to the melancholy of which I 
have spoken, but differs from it in that it springs from a 
more obvious and immediate cause, and is at once more 
definite and more intense. After a time, when the first bitr 
terness of anguish is past, and the mind recovers itself in a 
measure from the violence of the shock it has received, and 
which, for the time, like a sudden blow, seemed to stagger 
all its energies, when other causes begin to operate, and 
other scenes and cares demand its attention, its sorrow, at 
first violent and irrepressible, gradully subsides into thai 
calmer but more permanent form which we have already 
described as melancholy. 

Effects of Gh'ief upon the Mind in the first Shock of any 
Calamity, — When the loss is very great, especially if it 
comes suddenly to us — and what bereavement, however long 
anticipated and feared, does not at last overtake us sud- 
denly ? — the mind is at first, in a manner, stupefied and 
amazed, unable to realize its loss, and looks helplessly about 
it for relief. To this succeeds a state of mental anguish, 
more or less intense, in proportion to the liveliness of the 
sensibilities, and the strength of the previous attachment. 
In many cases the sorrow is uncontrollable, and finds relief in 
tears, or in those more violent expressions of anguish in 



400 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

which the burdened heart of man in all ages has been woni 
to indicate its grief, as the rending of the garments, the 
beating of the breast, the tearing of the hair, and other like 
demonstrations of utter and hopeless sorrow. The mind in 
such a state resigns itself passively to the violence of its emo- 
tion, and is swept on by the rushing current that overflows 
its banks. It is Rachel mourning for her children, and re- 
fusing to be comforted. It is David going to the chamber 
over the gate, and exclaiming, as he goes, " O Absalom, my 
son ! my son !" 

Subsequent State of Mind. — When the first violence of 
grief has subsided, and reflection succeeds to passion, the 
mind begins to recall the circumstances of its loss, and seta 
itself to comprehend the greatness and reality of the calam- 
ity that has befallen it. It dwells with interest and satisfac- 
tion on all the worth and virtues of the departed, magnifies 
all that was good, excuses or overlooks all that was faulty, 
recalls the words, the tones, the looks, and gathers up the 
slightest memento of the former history, with the same 
sacred regard and reverence with which it treasures in the 
funeral urn the ashes of the dead. A sacredness and dignity 
invest the character, and the life, when once the angel death 
has set his seal upon them. 

Silence of deep Chief — The deepest sorrow is not al- 
ways, perhaps not usually, the most violent and demonstra- 
tive. It is when the first sudden passion of grief is passed 
and the soul retires within herself to meditate upon her loss, 
calmly gathering her mantle about her to hide from the ob- 
servation of others those tears and that sorrow which are sa- 
cred, it is then that the deepest sorrow, and the heaviest dark- 
ness gather about the burdened spirit. The truest, deepest 
grief is ever silent. It shrinks fi-om human observation. It 
finds no words for expression, wishes none. It is a veiled 
and silent goddess, whose rites and altars are hidden from 
the eye of day. It is the nature of joy to communicate It* 
self. It is the nature of sorrow, whatever may b^ the occa' 



INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 401 



o 



^on whence it springs, to retire within itself. It seeks its 
chamber that it may weep there. 

Effect of Time in assuaging Sorrow, — The effect of time 
^ softening and allaying the violence of grief, is known to 
«very one. The manner in which this effect is produced is 
worthy of attention. A recurrence to the laws of sugges- 
tion may explain this. It will be recollected that among 
the secondary or subjective laws which regulate the sugges- 
tion of our thoughts, the interval of time which has elapsed 
since the occurrence of any event holds an important place. 
That which has taken place but recently is more likely to 
recur again to mind than events of remoter date. On the 
first occurrence of any calamity, or bereavement, every thing 
wends to remind us of our loss, and this constant suggestion 
of it has a powerful effect in keeping alive our sorrow. As 
ume passes on, however, the objects which once suggested 
only that which we had lost, become associated with, and 
^o suggest other objects and occurrences ; or, if they still 
j'emind us of our loss, the remembrance is mingled with 
that of other scenes and events which have since transpired, 
and other feelings which have since agitated our hearts. 
Thus time is constantly mingling other ingredients in the 
cup of our grief. The law of the most recent still holds in 
suggestion, and thus the very principle that formerly re- 
minded us continually of our loss, now shuts it out, by in* 
terposing between it and us what has since transpired. The 
thought of the past comes up less frequently, and when it 
recurs, is mingled with so many other associated objects, and 
experiences, that it no longer awakens emotions of unmiti- 
gated grief. Gradually other objects interest us, other plana 
and duties engage us, other emotions agitate the heart, ail 
successive waves beat on the same troubled shore, and 
render fainter, at each return, the traces which former biU 
lows had impressed upon its sands. 

Thus time, the great consoler^ assuages our sorrows, and 
. the unbroken darkness that once hung over the mind, and 



402 INSTINCTI VE EMOTIONS. 

shrouded all its thoughts and purposes, gives place, at lengthy 
to a chastened and subdued sadness, that suffuses the ya&l 
with a soft and mellow radiance. We are ever moving on, 
swiftly, steadily, in the current of events, and objects whose 
fearftil magnitude, once, from their very nearness, engrossed 
our whole attention as we passed into their deep shadow, 
gradually diminish as they recede, until their dark outline if 
barely discernible on the distant horizon. 

§ in. — Sympathy with the Happiness and Sorrow op Othess. 

In what Manner awaJcened. — Closely allied to the emo- 
tions of joy and sorrow awakened by our own personal experi- 
ence of good and of evil, is the sympathy we feel with the joys 
and sorrows of others in similar circumstances. Joy is con- 
tagious. So also is grief. We cannot behold the emotions 
of others, without, in some degree, experiencing a corres- 
ponding emotion. Nor is it necessary to be eye-witnesses 
of that happiness, or sorrow. The simple description of any 
scene of happiness or of misery affects the heart, and 
touches the chords of sympathetic emotion. We picture 
the scene to ourselves, we fancy ourselves the spectators, or, 
it may be, the actors and the sufferers ; we imagine what 
would be our own emotions in such a case, and in proportion 
to the liveliness of our power of conception, and also of our 
power of feeling, will be our sympathy with the real scene 
and the real sufferers. 

Nature of this Principle, — The sympathy thus awak- 
ened, whether with the joy or the sorrow of others, is a 
simple emotion^ distinct in its nature from both the affectioni 
and the desires, and it is, moreover, instinctive, rather than 
rational — a matter of impulse, a principle implanted in our 
nature, and springing into exercise, as by instinct, whenever 
the occasion presents itself, rather than the result of reason 
and reflection. It is a susceptibility which we possess, to 
some extent^ at least, in common with the brutes, who are 



INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS 403 

by DO means insensible to the distresses or to the happiness 
of their fellows. It is a susceiDtibility which manifests itself 
m early life, before habits of reflection are formed, and under 
circumstances which preclude the supposition that it may be 
the result of education, or in any manner an acquired and 
not an original and implanted principle. So far from being 
the result of reflection, rei*son and reflection are often needed 
to check the emotion, and keep it within due bounds. There 
are times when sympathy, for example, with the distresses 
of others, would stand in the way of efficient and necessary 
action, and when it is needful to summon all the resources 
of reason to our aid, in the stern and resolute performance 
of a duty which brings us into conflict with this instinctive 
principle of our nature. The judge is not at liberty to re- 
gard tlie tears of the heart-broken wife or child, when he 
rises to pronounce the stern sentence of violated law upon 
the wretched criminal. The kind-hearted surgeon must for 
the time be deaf to the outcries of his patient, and inseusibl« 
to his sufferings, or his ministrations are at an end. 

Usual lAmitation of the Term, — The term sympathy is 
more frequently used to denote the emotion awakened by 
the suffermgs of others, than our participation in their joys. 
There can be no doubt, however, of the tendency of our 
nature to each of these results, and that it is, in fact, but one 
and the same principle under a twofold aspect. Nor does 
t.he word itself more properly belong to, and more truly ex- 
I-ress, the one, than the other of these aspects. We as readily 
rejoice with those who do rejoice, as we weep with those 
who weep, and in either case our feeling is sympathy {pvv 
naOog). 

This Limitation accounted for. — The reason why the 
term is more frequently applied to denote participation in 
the sorrows of others, is obvious on a little reflection. Such, 
and so benevolent, are the arrangements of a kind Provi- 
dence, that happiness is the prevalent law of being, and sor- 
, row the exception to that general rule. It is diffused as 



404 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

the sunshine, and the gentle air over all things that breathe, 
and even inanimate objects, by a sort of sympathetic glad- 
ness, reflected from our own minds, seem to share in the 
general joy. Calamity and sorrow, at least in their more 
marked and definite forms, come, like storm and tempest in 
nature, more seldom, and, wheiL they do occur, are the 
more remarkable and stand out more impressively from 
the common experience of life, from their very rarity. 

More Need of Sympathy loith Sorrow, — There is doubt- 
less, also, more occasion for sympathy with the sorrows of 
others, when those sorrows do occur, than with their joys, 
and this may be another reason for the more frequent use 
of the term in this connection. Sorrow needs sympathy, as 
joy does not. It leans for support on some helping and 
friendly arm. Joy is, in its nature, strong and self-sustaining, 
sorrow the reverse. It is a wise and kind provision of the 
Author of our nature, by which there is implanted in our 
constitution an instinctive sympathy with sorrow and sufier- 
ing in all their forms, even when we ourselves are not di* 
rectly the objects on which the calamity falls. 

Memark of Dr. Brown, — It is well remarked by Dr. 
Brown that " we seem to sympathize less with the pleasures 
of others than we truly do, because the real sympathy is 
lost in that constant air of cheerfulness which it is the part 
of good manners to assume. If the laws of politeness re- 
quired of us to assume, in society, an appearance of sadness, 
as they now require from us an appearance of some slight 
degree of gayety, or, at least, of a disposition to be gay, it 
Is probable that we should then remark any sympathy with 
gladness, as we now remark particularly any sympathy with 
sorrow ; and we should certainly, then, use the general 
name to express the former of these, as the more extraordi* 
nary, in the same way as we now use it particularly to ex- 
press the feelings of commiseration. Joy," remarks the 
same writer, " may be regarded as the common dress of 
society, and real complacency is thus as little remai^kable 



INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 405 

as a "\\ ell-fashioned coat in a drawing-room. Let us coiiceive 
a single ragged coat to appear in the brilliant circle, ana 
all eyes will be instantly fixed on it. Even beauty itself, till 
the buzz of astonishment is over, will, for the moment, 
scarcely attract a single gaze, or wit a single listener. Such, 
with respect to the general dress of the social mind, is grief. 
It is something for the very appearance of which we are not 
prepared." 

Not true that we sympathize only with Sorrow, — These 
reasons sufficiently account for the almost exclusive attention 
paid by moralists to this part of our sympathetic nature, aa 
well as for the almost exclusive use of the term itself to de- 
note participation in the sorrows, rather than in the joys of 
others. It is not necessary to infer from this circumstance, 
as some have done, that our sympathies are only with sor-> 
row, that we do not experience a corresponding emotion in 
view of the happiness of others, a view as unfavorable to 
our nature as it is remote from truth. 

Distinction of Terms, — Sympathy, as usually employed, 
to denote a fellowship with the sufferings of others, is sy- 
nonymous with the more specific term commiseration^ and 
this again is interchangeable with the terms pity and com- 
passion. So far as use establishes a difference between these 
terms, it is perhaps this : we more frequently employ the 
word compassion where there is an ability and a disposition 
fco relieve the suffering ; we pity and we commiserate what 
rt is out of our power to remedy. 

Strength of this Feeling. — The emotion of sympathy, es- 
pecially in that form more sj)ecially under consideration, is 
probably one of the strongest and most marked in its effects 
upon the mind, of any of the feelings of which we are sus- 
ceptible. When fully aroused, it amounts even to a passion. 
When the object that awakens it is exposed to imminent 
danger and there is need of instant and efficient exertion 
to avert the danger, and bring that relief which, if it comes 
nt all, must come speedily, then there is no prudent csJ 



i06 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

eulation of consequences, no deliberation, no hesit^ition, no 
fear, but, regardless of every danger, the sympathizer, for- 
getful of himself, and thinking only of the object to be ac- 
complished, plunges into the sea or into the flames, faces the 
wild beast, or the more savage human foe, seizes the assas- 
sin's arm, or rushes desperately between the murderous 
weapon and its victim. This boldness and energy of action 
are, indeed, the result of sympathy, rather than the direct 
exercise of the emotion itself, but they show how powerful 
IS the feeling from which they spring. 

Irrespective of moral Qualities, — It is worthy of note, 
moreover, that the emotion of which we speak, is, in great 
measure, irrespective of the moral qualities of the sufferer. 
He may be a criminal on the rack or the gallows, the most 
hardened and abandoned of men, and the suffering to which 
he is exposed may be the just punishment of his crimes, 
still it is impossible for any one whose heart is not itself 
nardened against all human suffering, to regard the miser- 
able victim with other than feelings of compassion. That 
must be a hard heart that could witness the agony of even 
its worst enemy, in such a case, without pity for the sut 
ferer. • 

Design of this Principle, — If we inquire, now, for what 
end this feeling was implanted in our nature, its final cause 
IS obvious. It is a benevolent arrangement, the design of 
which is twofold : — first, to prevent undue suffering, by 
keeping in check the excited passions that would otherwise 
prompt to the infliction of immoderate and unjust punish* 
ment when the object of our resentment is in our power , 
oecondly, to secure that relief to the sufferer which, in cir- 
cumstances of peril, might fail to be afforded were it not for 
the pressure and impulse of so strong and sudden an emo- 
tiou. 

Adaptation to Circumstances, — A further and incidental 
benefit insulting from the possession of a lively sensibility to 
the joys and sorrows of others, has been notijed by Ccgan, 



INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 407 

in his treatise on the passions, viz., tliat it disposes the miiid 
to accommodate itself readily to the tastes, manners, and 
dispositions of those with whom we have occasion to asso. 
eiate. A mind of quick and ready sympathy easily enteis 
into the feelings and understands the conduct of others un- 
der given circumstances, and is able to adapt itself to the 
same, easily, and by a sort of instinct. It places itself at 
once in the same position, and governs itself accordingly. 

Sympathy not to be traced to Self -love as its Chngin, — 
The question has arisen, whether sympathy, which, of all the 
sensibilities, would seem to lie at the furthest remove from 
all admixture of selfishness, is not, after all, to be traced ul 
timately to the principle of self-love. Those philosophers 
who regard this principle as the main-spring of all human 
action, and the parent source of all the various emotions 
that agitate the human heart, are at some pains to show that 
even the feeling of pity may be traced to the same origin 
It was the theory of Hobbes, that the sentiment of pity at 
the ca]**mities of others springs from the imagination, or 
fiction as he terms it, of a similar calamity befalling our- 
selves. Adam Smith also maintains that it is only from 
our own experience that we can form any idea of the sufler- 
ings of others, and that the way in which we form such an 
idea is by supposing ourselves in the same circumstances 
with the suflerer, and then conceiving how we should be 
affected. All this is very true. It is in this way, doubtless, 
that we get the idea of what another is suffering. But the 
idea of what he suffers is one thing, and our sympathy with 
that Buffering is another. One is a conception, and the other 
is the feeling awakened by that conception. Moreover, it 
does not follow, as Mr. Stewart has well shown in his criti 
cism upon this theory, that the sympathy in this case arises 
from our conceiving or believing, for the moment, those suf 
ferings to be really our own. The feeling which arises on 
the contemplatii )n of our own real or fancied distress, is quite 
another feeling in its character, from that of pity or com- 



408 INSTINCTIVE EMOTIONS. 

passion. The two emotions are readily distinguished. The 
mere uneasiness which we feel at the sight of another's suf 
fering, and the desire which we naturally feel to be rid of 
that uneasiness, are not the chief elements in compassion. 
If they were, the sure and simple remedy would be to run 
away from the distress which occasions the uneasiness, to 
put it as quickly as possible out of sight and out of mind, 
Such an emotion, prompting to such a course, might well be 
termed selfish. But this is not the true nature of sympathy. 
It is not a mere unpleasant sensation produced by observing 
the sufferings of another, though such a sensation, doubtless, 
is produced in a sensitive mind, and accompanies, or may 
even be said to form a part of, the emotion which we term 
sympathy ; there is, over and above this feeling of uneasiness, 
2l fellowship of sorrow and of suffering, a bearing of that suf- 
fering with him, as A^5, and not as our own, a pain/br A^77?, 
and not for ourselves, the result and urgent prompting of 
which is the impulse, the strong irrepressible desire to re- 
lieve, not ourselves from uneasiness, but the sufferer from 
that which occasions his distress. 

What follows from this Theory, - — If compassion for 
others were the offspring of fear for ourselves, then, as But- 
ler has well said, the most fearful natures ought to be the 
most compassionate, which is far from being the case. It 
may be added, also, that if sympa^thy is, in any respect, a 
selfish principle, then they who are most completely and 
habitually governed by selfish considerations ought, for the 
same reason, to be the most keenly alive to the sufferings of 
others, which is little less than a contradiction in terms 



CHAPTER II. 

RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

g L — Ejcotions of Joy or Sadness arising from the Contempla.tios 
OF OUR OWN Excellence or the Keverse, 

Nature and Objects of this Emotion, — Among those 
susceptibilities which, while implanted in our nature, and 
springing into exercise by their own spontaneous energy, 
imply in their operation the exercise of the reflective powers, 
and in general, of the higher intellectual faculties, and which 
on that account, we designate as rational^ in distinction 
from the instinctive emotions, a prominent place is due to 
those vivid feelings of pleasure, and pain, with which we con- 
template any real or supposed excellence, or defect, in our- 
selves* The direct object of the emotions now under con- 
sideration, is self in some form o'' aspect. The immediate 
cause of these emotions is some real or fancied excellence 
which we possess, or, on the other hand, some real or imag- 
ined deficiency. This excellence or deficiency may pertain 
to our intellectual or to our moral qualities and attainments, 
or even to our circumstances and condition in life, to any 
thing, in short, which is ours^ and which distinguishes us 
from our fellows. The quality contemplated may be a real 
possession and attainment, or it may exist only in our imag- 
mation and conceit. And so, also, of the defect ; that, too, 
may be real, or imaginary. In either case, vivid feelings 
are awakened in the mind. It is impossible to contemplate 
ourselves either as possessing or as lacking any desirable 
quality without emotion, pleasing or painful, and that in a 
high degree. 

hi what Manner awaksned, — These emotions are aAvak- 

IB 



410 RATIONAL EMOTIONS 

ened in either of two ways : by the simple contemplation of 
the supposed excellence, or defect, in themselves considered 
as pertaining to us ; or, more frequently, by the comparison 
of ourselves with others in these respects., It is to the feel 
ings awakened, in the latter case, by the perceived superioritj. 
or inferiority of ourselves to others, as tiie resuJt of sucb 
comparison, that the terms pride and humility are ordinanly 
applied. These terms are relative, and imply, always, somti 
process of comparison. There may be, however, the paiU' 
ful consciousness of defect, or the pleasing consciousness (»f 
some high and noble attainment, when the relation which we 
Bustain to others, as regards these points, forms no part of 
the object of contemplation. The comparison is not of our- 
selves with others, but only of our present with our former 
selves. We are satisfied and delighted at our own progress 
and improvement, or humbled and cast down at our repeated 
failure, and manifest deficiency. 

Not the same with r)ioral Emotion, — The emotions now 
under consideration must not be confounded with the satis- 
faction which arises in view of moral worthiness, and the 
regret and disapprobation with which we view our past 
conduct as morally wrong. The emotions of which we now 
speak, are not of the nature of moral emotion, however 
closely allied in some respects. It is not the verdict of an 
approving or condemning conscie'jjy that awakens them. 
They have no reference to the right as such. The object is 
viewed, not in the light of obligatijn or duty, but merely as 
a good^ a thing agreeable and de^irabb. Thus viewed, it« 
possession gives us pleasure, its absence, pain. 

Not blame-worthy in itself. — In the simple emotion tbugi 
awakened, the satisfaction and pleasuie with w^hich we re- 
gard our own intellectual and moral attamikents, or eveu 
our external circumstances, there is nothing blamable or 
unworthy of the true man. It is simpiy the working of 
nature. The susceptibility to such emotion is j)art of our con- 
stitution, implanted a^d inherent. As Dr. Brown has wel) 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 411 

remarked, it is impossible to desire excellence, and not to 
rejoice at its attainment ; and if it is culpable to feel pleasure 
at attainments which have made us nobler than we were 
before, it must, of course, have been culpable to desire such 
excellence. 

In what Cases the Emotion becomes culpable, — It la 
onJy when the emotion exists in an undue degree, or with re- 
gard to unworthy objects, when the supposed excellence 
upon which we congratulate ourselves really does not exist, 
or, when existing, we are disposed to set ourselves up above 
others on account of it, and perriaps to look down upon 
others for the lack of it, or even to make them feel by our 
manner and bearing what and how great the difference 
is between them and us ; it is only under such forms and 
modifications, that the feeling becomes culpable and odious. 
These it not unfrequently assumes. They are the states of 
mind commonly denoted by the term pride^ as the word ia 
used in common speech ; and the censure usually and very 
justly attached to the state of mind designated by that 
term, must be understood as applicable to the disposition 
and feelings now described, and not to the simple emotion 
of pleasure in view of our own real or supposed attainments. 
That which wc condemn in the proud man is not that he 
excels others, or is conscious of thus excelling, or takes 
pleasure even in that consciousness, but that, comparing him 
self with others, and feeling his superiority, he is disposed 
to think more highly of himself than he ough^, on account 
of it, and* more contemptuously of others thin he ought; 
and especially if he seeks to impress others with the sense 
r)f that superiority. 

Different Formes which this Disposition assumes. — This 
he may do in several ways. He may be fond of displaymg 
his superiority, and of courting the applause and distinction 
which it brings. Then he is the vain man. He may make 
much of that which really is worth little, and plume himself 
on what he does not really possess. Then he is the conceited 



#12 RATIONAL EMOTIONS 

man. Ho may look with contempt upon and treat witt. 
arrogance his inferiors. Then he is the haughty' man. Ol 
he may have too much pride to show in this way his own 
pride ; too much self-respect to put on airs, and court atten* 
tion by display ; too much sense to rate himself very fai 
above his real worth ; too much good breeding to treat 
others with arrogance and hauteur. In that case he con- 
tents himself with his own high opinion and estimate of 
himself, and the enjoyment of his own conscious superiority 
to those around him. He is simply the proud man then, not 
the vain, the conceited, or the arrogant. The difference, 
however, is not so much that he thinks less highly of him- 
self, and less contemptuously of others in comparison, but 
that he does not so fully show what he thinks. The supe- 
riority is felt, but it is not so plainly manifested. 

The Disposition^ as thus manifested^ reprehensible, — Of 
this disposition and state of mind in any of its manifestations 
as now described, it is not too much to say that it is worthy 
of the censure which it commonly receives. It is not merely 
unamiable and odious, but morally reprehensible. Especially 
is this the case where the superiority consists, not in mental 
or moral endowments and attainments, but in adventitious 
circumstances, such as beauty or strength of person, station 
in society, wealth, or the accident of birth — circumstances 
which imply no necessary worth in the possessor, no real 
and inherent superiority to those on whom he looks down. 
In such a case, pride is purely contemptible. 

Incompatible with the highest Excellence, — The highest 
excellence is ever incompatible with the disposition to think 
highly of our present attainments and excellence, and to 
place ourselves above others in comparison. Emotions of 
pleasure may indeed arise in our minds, as we view the un- 
mistakable evidences of our own improvement. But the 
noblest nature is that which looks neither at itself, to mark 
its own acquirements, nor yet at others below itself^ to mark 
its own superio ity, but whose earnest gaze is fixed only or 






RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 413 

{l:«at which is above and superior to itself — the beau ideal 
ever floating before it of an excellence not yet attained — • 
m comparison with which all present attainments seem of 
little moment. The truly great and noble mind is ever 
humble, and conscious of its own deficiencies. 



§11. — Enjoyment op the Ludicbous. 

Properly an Emotion, — Among the sources of rational 
enjoyment which the constitution of our nature affords, 
must be reckoned the feeling awakened by the perception 
of the ludicrous. We class this among the emotions, inas- 
much as it is a matter of feeling, and of pleasurable feeling, 
differing in its nature not more from the intellectual facul- 
ties, on the one hand, than from the affections and desires, 
on the other. It is a species of joy or gladness, a pleasur- 
able excitement of feeling, awakened by a particular class 
of objects. Whatever else may be true of the feeling in 
question, the character of agreeableness is inseparable from 
It. It falls, therefore, properly into that class of feelings 
which comprises the various modifications of joy and so^ 
row, and which we have denominated simj)le emotions. 

'Why rational, — We term it rational,^ rather than in- 
stinctive, inasmuch as it implies, if I mistake not, the exer* 
cise of the higher intellectual faculties. It is the preroga- 
tive of reason. The brute nature has no perception, and of 
course no enjoyment, of the ludicrous. The idiot has none, 
riie uncultivated savage nature has it only in a slight degree. 
In this respect the feeling under consideration is quite anal- 
ogous to the enjoyment of the beautiful and sublime, and 
also to the feeling awakened in view of right or wrong ac- 
tion, the approbation or disapprobation of our past conduct. 
All these, though founded in our nature and constitution, 
are ration al rather than instinctive, as implying the exercise 
of those faculties which more peculiarly distinguish maa 
from the Icwer orders of beins:. 



414 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

In what Way to he defined. — To define precisely the 
eimotion of the ludicrous would be as difficult as to give an 
exact definition of any other feeling. We must content 
ourselves, as in all such cases, by determining the circum- 
stances or conditions which give occasion for the feeling. 
Though we cannot define the emotion itself, we can care- 
fully observe and specify the various objects and occasiona 
that give rise to it. 

The Question stated, — Views of LocJce and Dry den. — 
Under what circumstances, then, is the feeling of the ludi' 
crous awakened ? What is that certain peculiarity, or qual- 
ity, of a certain class of objects, which constitutes what we 
call the ludicrous^ objectively considered ? Various answers 
have been given to this question, by writers not unac- 
customed to the careful observation of mental phenomena. 
Mr. Locke's definition of wit is to this effect, that it consists 
in "putting those ideas together with quickness and variety, 
wherein can be found any resemblance or congruity, where- 
by to make up pleasant pictures and agreeable visions in the 
fancy." This, it has been justly remarked, is too compre- 
hensive, since it includes the entire range of eloquence and 
poetry. It comprends the sublime and the beautiful as well 
as the witty. It applies to the most facetious passages of 
Hudibras ; it applies equally well to the most eloquent pas- 
sages of Burke or Webster, and to many of the finest pas- 
sages of Paradise Lost. Still more comprehensive is Dry- 
den's definition, who says of wit, that it is a propriety of 
thoughts and words, or thoughts and words eloquently 
adapted to the subject, a definition which, it has been jo 
'*vOsely remarked, would include at once Blair's Sermons 
Campbell's Pleasures of Hope, Caesar's Commentaries, th* 
Philippics of Cicero, and the funeral orations of Bossuet, a» 
peculiarly witty productions. It should in justice be re- 
marked, however, that neither Dryden nor Locke, in their 
<|pr use of the term wit, seem to have had in mind what we now 

understand bj it. viz., facetiousness, or the mirth-provoking 



KATIONAL FMOTIONS. 415 

power, but rather to have employed the word in that more 
general sense, in which it was formerly almost exclusively 
used, to denote smartness and vigor of the intellectual 
powers, good sense, sound judgment, quickness of the appre- 
hension, moi'e particularly as these qualities are exhibited in 
discourse or in wi'iting. 

Definition of Johnson, — Johnson comes nearer the maik 
when he defines wit as " a kind of concordia dlscors^ a com- 
bination of dissimilar images, a discovery of occult resem- 
blances in things apparently unlike." Not much removed 
from this, if not indeed derived from it, is the definition of 
wit given by Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric — 
" that which excites agreeable surprise in the mind, by the 
strange assemblage of related images presented to it." To 
this, also, applies the same objection as to the preceding de- 
finitions, that it includes too much, the beautiful and suh- 
Ume not less than the ludicrous, eloquence as well as wit. 

Of Hobhes, — Hobbes defines laughter, which, so far as 
relates to the mind, is merely the expression of the feeling 
of the ludicrous, to be " a sudden glory, arising from a sud- 
den conception of some eminency in ourselves, by compari- 
son with the infirmity of others, or our own former infirmity." 
There can be little doubt, I think, that the object which ex- 
cites laughter, always present itself to the mind as in some 
sense its inferior ; and in so far, the definition involves an 
essential element of the ludicrous. The person laughing is 
always, for the time being, superior, in his own estimation 
at least, to the person or thing laughed at. It is some awl; 
wardness, some blunder, some defect of body, mind, o 
manner, some lack of sharpness and sense, or of courage, o, 
of dignity, some perceived incongruity between the true 
character or position of the individual and his present cii 
cumstances, that excites our laughter and constitutes the 
hidicruus. 

Obj'eetio?is to this Theory. — It is not true, however, that 
the hughter or the disposition to laugh, arisen from th« 



116 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

Simple conception of our own superiority, or the inferiority 
of the object contemplated, even in the cases supposed ; for 
if that were so, then wherever and whenever we discover such 
superiority, the feeling of the ludicrous ought to be awakened, 
and the greater the superiority, the stronger the tendency to 
mirth ; which is far from being the case. We are not dis- 
posed to laugh at the misfortunes of others, however superior 
our own condition may be to theirs in that very respect. My 
es^tate may be better than my neighbor's, or my health su- 
perior to his, but I am not disposed to laugh at him on that 
account. On the theory of Hobbes, no persons ought to be 
so full of merriment, even to overflowing, as the proud, sel:& 
conceited, and supercilious, who are most deeply impressed 
with the idea of their own vast superiority to people and 
things in general. The fact is precisely the reverse. Such 
persons seldom laugh, and when they do, the smile that 
plays for a moment on the face is of that cold and disdainful 
nature which is far removed from genuine and hearty merri- 
ment. It has little in it, as it has been well said, " of the 
full glorying and eminency of laughter," but is rather lika 
the smile of Cassius. 

" He loves no plays, 
As thou dost, Antony ; he hoars no music ; 
Seldom he smiles ; and smiles in such a sort, 
As if he mocked himself and scorned his spirit. 
That could be moved to smile at any thing." 

We cannot then resolve the ludicrous into the simple per- 
ception of some inferiority of the object or person thus re- 
garded, to ourselves, since there are many kinds of inferiority 
which do not, in the least, awaken the sense of the ludicrous, 
while, at the same time, those who are most impressed by 
the consciousness of their superiority are not usually most 
disposed to mirth. 

Incongruity the essential Element, — If we are required 
now to specify is vhat consists the essential character of the 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 417 

ludicrous, and of wit which maybe regarded as the exciting 
or producing cause of the same, we should detect it in th^ 
grouping^ or bringing together in a sudden and unexpected 
manner^ ideas or things that are in their nature incongruous. 
The incongruity of the objects thus brought into juxtaposi- 
tion, and the surprise felt at the novel and unexpected relation 
thus discovered, are, it seems to me, the true essential ele- 
ments in the idea of the ludicrous. If we examine closely 
the different objects that give rise to this emotion, we shall 
find, I think, always something incongruous, and conse- 
quently unusual and unexpected, in the relations presented^ 
whether of ideas or of things. It may be the result of acci- 
dent, or of awkwardness, or of mental obtuseness, or of de- 
sign ; it matters not in what mode or from what source the 
thing proceeds; whenever these conditions are answered, 
the sense of the ludicrous is awakened. 

Relation of Surprise to the ludicrous. — Surprise is an 
essential concomitant of the ludicrous. This is the state of 
mind into which we are thrown by the occurrence of any 
thing new, strange, out of the usual course, and, therefore, 
unexpected. Whatever is incongruous, is likely to be un- 
usual, and of course unexpected, and hence strikes the mind 
with more or less surprise. Not every thing that surprises 
us, however, is witty. The sudden fall of a window near 
which we are sitting, or the unexpected discharge of a mus- 
ket within a few paces of us, may cause us to start with sur- 
prise, but would not strike us probably as particularly face- 
tious. We are surprised to hear of the death of a fiiend, oi 
of some fearful accident, attended with loss of life to many, 
but there is no mirthfulness in such surprise. It is only that 
form of surprise which is awakened by the perception of the 
incongruous, and not 'the surprise we feel in general at any 
thing new and strange, that is related to the ludicrous. It 
IS rather a concomitant, therefore, than strictly an element 
of the emotion we are now considering. 

Novelty ac related to Wit. — How much novelty and-sud 



418 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

denness add to the effect of wit, every one knows. A story 
however witty, once heard, loses its freshness and zest, ard, 
often repeated, becomes not merely uninteresting, but irk 
some, and at length intolerable. In the same manner, and 
for the same reason, a witticism which we know to have 
been premeditated produces little effect, as compared with 
the same thing said in sudden repartee, and on the spur of 
the moment. That a man should have studied out some 
curious relations and combinations of things in his closet, 
3oes not surprise us so much, as that he should happen to 
.^onceive of these relations at the very moment when they 
would meet the exigency of the occasion. The epithets 
which we most commonly apply to any witty production or 
facetious remark, indicate the same thing ; we call it lively, 
fresh. sparkUng, full of vivacity and zest — terms borrowed, 
perhaps, from the choicer wines, which will not bear exposure 
but lose their flavor and life when once brought to the air. 

Even the Incongruous not always ludicrous, — We come 
to this result, then, in our own attempted analysis, that the 
incongruity of the ideas or objects brought into relation with 
each other constitutes the essential characteristic, the invari- 
able element of the ludicrous, the effect being always greatly 
heightened by the surprise we feel at the novel and unex- 
pected combinations thus presented. It must be remarked, 
however, that even the incongruous and unexpected fail to 
awaken the sense of the ludicrous, when the object or event 
contemplated is of such a nature as to give rise to other and 
more serious emotions. When the occurrence, however 
novel and surprising in itself, or even ludicrous, is of such a 
nature as to endanger the life, or seriously injure the well- 
being of ourselves or of others, in the one case fear, in the 
other compassion, are at once awakened, and all sense of the 
ludicrous is completely at an end. The graver passion is at 
variance with the lighter, and banishes it from the mind. 
Should we see a w« 11 dressed and portly man, of some pre- 
tension and bearing, accidentally lose his footing and sprawl 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 419 

Ingloriously in the gutter, our first impulse uu doubted! v 
would be to laugh. The incongruity of his present position 
and appearance with his general neatness of person and dig- 
nity of manner would appeal strongly to the sense of the 
ridiculous. Should we learn, however, that in the fall he 
had broken his leg, or otherwise seriously injured himself 
our mirthfulness at once gives place to pity. 

Discovery of Truth not allied to the ludicrous, — It is for 
a similar reason that the discovery of any new and import- 
ant truth in science, however strange and unexpected, never 
awakens the feeling of the ludicrous. Its importance carries 
it over into a higher sphere of thought and feeling. Kep- 
ler's law of planetary motion must have been at first a strange 
and wonderful announcement; the chemical identity of char- 
coal and the diamond presents, in a new and strange relation, 
objects apparently most unlike and incongruous ; yet, in all 
probabihty, neither the astronomer, nor the chemist, who 
made and announced these discoveries, were regarded by the 
men ol the time as having done any thing peculiarly witty. 
We look at the importance of the results in such cases, and 
whatever of oddity or incongruity there maybe in the ideas 
or objects thus related, fails to impress the mind in the pres- 
ence of graver emotions. 

Various Forms of the ludicrous. — The incongruity that 
awakens the feeling of the ludicrous may present itself in 
many diverse forms. It may relate to objects^ or to ideas. 
In either case, the grouping or bringing together of the in- 
congruous elements may be accidental., or it may be inten- 
tional. If accidental, it passes for a blunder ; if intentional^ 
it take^^ the name of w^it. 

Accidental and intentional grouping of Objects incongru- 
ous. — 01 the accidental grouping of objects that are incon- 
gruous, we have an instance in the case all eady supposed, of 
the well-dressed and dignified gentleman unexpectedly pros- 
trate in the mud. If in place of the dignified gentleman we 
have the dandy, o^ the Broadway exquisite, fresh from thu 



420 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

toilet, the incongruity is so much the greatei, anc so much tiid 
greater our mirth. Let the hero of the scene, for instance, 
be such a one as Hotspur so contemptuously describes as 
coming to parley with him after battle : — 

" When I was dry with rage and extreme toil, 
Breathless and faiat, leaning upon my sword, 
Came there a certain lord, neat, trimly dressed, 
Fresh as a bridegroom ; and his chin, new-reaped, 
Showed hke a stubble-land at harvest home. 
He was perfumed like a milhner ; 
And 'twixt his finger and his thumb he held 
A pouncet box, which ever and anon 
He gave his nose, and took 't away again ; 

- imagine such a character, with all his finery, floundering 
m the mud, and the ludicrousness of the scene would be such 
as to set at naught all attempts at gravity, even on the part 
of those who seldom smile. . 

When the incongruous objects are purposely brought into 
relation for the sake of exciting mirth, the wit may be at the 
expense of others^ in which case we have either the practical 
joke, or simple buffoonery, imitating the peculiarities and in- 
congruities of others ; or the joker may play off his wit at 
his own expense^ and act the clown or the fool for the amuse- 
ment of observers. 

Accidental grouping of incongruous Ideas. — When the 
incongruity is that not of objects^ but of ideas brought into 
new and unexpected relation, and when this is the result of 
accident or awkwardness, rather than of design, we have 
what is termed a blunder or a hull. In such a case there ia 
always involved some inconsistency between the thing 
meant, and the thing said or done. There is an appar 
ent congruity, but a real incongruity of the related ideas 
An instance of this occurs in the anecdote related by 
Sydney Smith, of a physician, who, being present \Aher0 
the conversation turned uf ^n an Ergligb nobleman of rank 



KATIONAL EMOTIONS. 421 

and fortune, but without children, remaiked, with great 
seriousness, that to be childless was a misfortune, but 
he thouofht he had observed that it was }.eTeditar\i in some 
tamilies. Of this nature is most of the wit which we call 
Irish ; the result of accident rather than design — a blunder, 
a bull. It is said that during the late rebellion in Ireland, 
the enraged populace, on a certain occasion, vented their 
wrath against a famous banker, by solemnly resolving to 
burn all his bank-notes which they could lay hands on ; for- 
getting, in their rage, that this was only to make themselves 
BO much the poorer, and him so much the richer. The in* 
stance given by Mr. Mahan is also in point, of two Irishmen 
walking together through the woods, the foremost of whom 
seizing a branch, as he passed along, and holding it for a 
while, suddenly let it fly back, whereby his companion be- 
hind was suddenly reduced to a horizontal position, but on 
recovering himself, congratulated his associate on having 
held back the branch as long as he did, since it must other- 
wise have killed him. 

Intentional grouping of incongruous Ideas, — The inten- 
tional grouping of incongruous ideas, for the purpose of 
exciting the feeling of the ludicrous, is more properly de- 
nominated wit. This, again, may assume diverse forms. 
Where the ideas are entirely dissimilar, but have a name or 
sound in common, which similarity of mere sound or name 
IS seized upon as the basis of comparison, the wit takes the 
name of a pun. The more complete the incongruity of the 
two ideas, thus brought into strange and unexpected relation, 
under cover of a word, the more perfect the pun, and the 
more ludicrous the effect. This kind of wit is deservedly 
reckoned as inferior. " By unremitting exertions," says a 
quaint writer, " it has been at last put under, and driven 
into cloisters, from whence it must never again be suffered 
to emerge into the light of the world." One invaluable 
blessing, adds the same author, produced by the banishment 
of punning is, an immediate reduction of the number of wits. 



422 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

The Burlesque. — When the wit is employed in del&«ki^ 
what is great and imposing, by applying thereto figures and 
phrases that are mean and contemptible, it takes the name of 
burlesque. The pages of Hudibras afford abundant illustra 
tions of this form of the ludicrous. The battle of Don Quixote 
and the wind-mills is a burlesque on the ancient tournaments 

The Mock-Heroic, — The mock-heroic, by a contrary pro 
cess, provokes the sense of the ridiculous by investing what 
is inconsiderable and mean with high-sounding epithets and 
dignified description. The battle of the mice and frogs is an 
instance of this. 

The double Meaning, — Beside the varieties of intentional 
incongruity of ideas already mentioned, there are certain less 
important forms of witticism, which can perhaps liardly be 
classed under any of the foregoing divisions. The whole 
tribe of double entendres,^ or double meanings, where one 
thing is said and another thing is meant, or at least where 
the apparent and honest is not the only or the real meaning; 
satire,^ which is only a modification o^ the same principle, 
drawn out into somewhat more extended and dignified dis- 
course, and which, under the form of apparent praise, hides 
the shafts of ridicule and invective ; sarcasm^ which conveys 
the intended censure and invective in a somewhat more in- 
direct and oblique manner ; — these are all but various modes 
of what we have called intentional incongruity of ideas. 

TJiis Principle^ in what Respects of dangerous Tendency. — 
Of the value of this principle of our nature, I have as yet 
said nothing. To estimate it at its true worth, is not alto- 
gether an easy thing. On the one hand, there can be little 
doubt that, carried to excess, it becomes a dangerous prin- 
ciple. The tendency to "\iew all things, even perhaps the 
most sacred, in a ludicrous light, and to discover fanciful 
and remote relations between objects and ideas the most 
diverse and incongruous, must exert an unhappy influence 
on the general tone and character of both the mind and the 
heart. Where wit, or the disposition to the ludicrous, be- 



ItATIONAL EMOTIONS. 



423 



comes the predominant quality of the mind, impressing the 
other and nobler faculties into its lawless service, it must be 
to the detriment of the mind's highest energies and capaci- 
ties ; to the detriment especially of that sincerity and honesty 
of purpose, and that earnest love of truth, which are the 
foundation of all true greatness. I speak in this of the ex. 
cess and abuse of wit ; I speak of the mere wit. 

Of use to the Mind, — On the other hand, the tendency 
to the ludicrous has its uses in the economy and constitution 
of our nature, and they are by no means to be overlooked. 
It gives a lightness and buoyancy, a freshness and life, to the 
faculties that would otherwise be jaded in the weary march 
and routine of life. It is to the mind what music is to the 
soldier on the march. It enlivens and refreshes the spirits. 
A hearty laugh doeth good like a medicine. A quick and 
keen perception of the ludicrous, when not permitted to 
usurp undue control, but made the servitor of the higher 
powers and propensities, and keeping its true place, not in 
the fore-front, but in the background of the varied and busy 
scene, is to be regarded as one of the most fortunate mental 
endowments. 

Wit often associated with noble Qualities, — There is no 
necessary connection, no connection of any sort, perhaps, 
between wisdom and dullness, although a great part of 
mankind have always persisted in the contrary opinion. 
The laughter-loving and laughter-provoking man is by no 
means a fool. He who goes through the world, such as it 
is, and sees in all its caprices, and inconsistencies, and follies, 
and absurdities, nothing to laugh at, much more justly de- 
serves the suspicion of a lack of sense. "Wit," it has been 
justly remarked, " is seldom the only eminent quality which 
resides in the mind of any man; it is commonly accompanied 
by many other talents of every description, and ought to be 
considered as a strong evidence of a fertile and superior un- 
derstanding. Almost all the great poets, orators, and states* 
mi ^n )f all times, have been witty." 



424 NATIONAL EMOTIONS, 

Wit as an Instrument for correcting Folly. — There u 
one important use of the faculty under consideration, tc 
which I have not as yet alluded. I refer to its power as an 
instrument for keeping in check the follies and vices of 
those who are governed by no higher principle than a regard 
to the good opinion of society, and a fear of incurring the 
ridicule of an observing and sharp-sighted world. To such, 
and such there are in multitudes, " the world? s dread laugh?'^ 
is more potent and formidable than any law of God or man. 
Tliere are, moreover, many lighter foibles and inconsistent 
des of even good men, for which the true and most effective 
weapon is ridicule. 

Heniarks of Sydney Smith, — I cannot better conclude 
ray remarks upon this part of our mental constitution, than 
by citing some very just observations of Sydney Smith—- 
himself one of the keenest wits of the age. 

" I have talked of the danger of wit ; I do not mean by 
th-^t to enter into common-place declamation against faculties, 
oecause they are danp-erous ; wit is dangerous, eloquence is 
dangerous, a talent for observation is dangerous, every thing 
is dangerous that has eRPr<^y and vigor for its characteristics ; 
nothmg is safe but mediocrity. * * * But when wit is 
combined with sense and ii;iformation ; where it is softened 
by benevolence, and restrained by strong principle ; when it 
is in the hands of a man who can use it and despise it, who 
can be witty and something much hetter than witty, who 
loves honor, justice, decency, good nature, morality, and 
religion, ten thousand times better than wit ; wit is then a 
beautiful and delightful part of our ns^ture." 

§ III. — Enjoyment oi>' the New and Woxlerful. 

Surprise and JSnnui, — Of that forra o^ surprise winch 
arises in view of the incongruous, ind wb'ch ac^ompaniea 
the feeling of the ludicrous, I hav^ already nad o<3oas;ion to 
Hpeak, in treating of that em.otion Ot the feeling tyi %vvt 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 425 

prifiipfj in general, its nature, and occasions, and also of that 
feeling to which it stands opposed, and which for want of a 
better term we may call ennui^ I am now to speak. 

Definition and nature of Surprise, — Surprise may be de- 
fined as the feeling awakened by the perception of whatever 
IS new and wonderful. It is, in itself considered, an agree- 
able emotion, rather than otherwise. Variety and novelty 
are usually pleasing ; our nature demands them, and is grati- 
fied at their occurrence. Monotony, the unbroken thread, 
and ever-recurring routine of ordinary life and duty, weary, 
and, after a time, disgust us. Upon this listlessness and 
lethargy of the mind, a new and unexpected event, as the 
arrival of a friend, or the reception of some unlooked-for 
mtelligence, breaks in with an agreeable surprise. Hence 
the eagerness of men, in all ages and all nations, to hear or 
see some new thing. It is only when the new event or in 
telligence is of the nature of positive evil, when the news is 
of some misfortune, real or imagined, when the experience 
of present, or the fear of future suffering, is the direct and 
natural result of the occurrence, that the surprise becomes a 
painful emotion. And even in such cases, I am not quite 
sure that there is not in the first excitement of the mind 
upon the reception of bad news, as of the death of a friend, 
or the calamity of a neighbor, something for the moment, 
of the nature of pleasure mingling with the pain. We deeply 
regret the occurrence, but are pleased to have heard the 
news. The thing grieves us, but not the hearing of it. It 
is not the surprise that pains us, but the thing at which we 
are surprised. Surprise, like every other form of mental ex- 
citement, is not, in itself, and within due bounds, disagree- 
able, but the reverse. 

How awakened, — This emotion is awakened, as already 
stated, in view of any thing unforeseen and unexpected. 
We naturally anticipate, to some extent, the course of the 
future. We presume it will be substantially as the past, 
We expect the recurrence of what has often and usually oo 



426 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

curred, and whenever anything breaks in on this estabhshed 
order of events, we are surprised at the interruption in the 
ordinary train of sequences. Hence the new and the strange 
always excite surprise. 

Diff^:rs from Wonder, — Surprise differs from wonder, in 
that the latter involves an intellectual element, the effort of 
the mind to satisfy itaelf of the cause and proper explanation 
cf the new and strange phenomenon. Surprise is purely a 
matter of sensibility, of feeling, and not of intellect. The 
mind is wholly passive under this emotion. It may lead to 
action, as may any other emotion, but, like every other emo- 
tion, it is, in itself, an influence exerted upon the mind, and 
not by it, something passively rec jived, and not actively put 
forth. 

From Astonishment, — It diffen? from astonishment in 
that the latter expresses a higher degree of mental excite- 
ment, as in view of some occurrence exceedingly remarkable 
and strange, or of some object whose magnitude and import- 
ance fills the mind. 

Design of this Principle. — The end to be accomplished 
by this provision of our nature is sufficiently obvious. Our 
attention is thereby called to whatever is out of the ordinary 
course, and which, from the circumstance that it is something 
unusual, may be supposed to require attention, and we are 
put on our guard against the approaching danger, or roused 
to meet the present emergency. Surprise is the alarm-bell 
that calls all our energies into action, or at least warns them 
to be in prt^sent readiness for whatever service may be 
needed. The same principle operates also as a stimulus to 
exertion in the ordinary aflairs of life. We seek new things, 
we are weary with the old, and this simple law of our na- 
tui'e is often one of the strongest incitements to effort. 

The opposite Feeling, — The opposite of surprise is that 
imeasy feeling, of which we are conscious, from the constant 
recurrence of the same objects in unvaried sequence; as, lor 
instance, from the continued repetition of the same sound, 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS 42*? 

or series of sounds, the uniform succession of the same or 
plniilar objects in the landscape, and the like. Every one 
knows how tedious becomes a perfectly straight and level 
road, with the same objects occurring at regular intervals, 
and with nothing to break the dead monotony of the scene. 
The most rugged passes of the Alps would be a relief in ex- 
change, both to body and mind. The repetition of the same 
song, or the same succession of musical sounds, howevei 
pleasing in themselves, becomes in like manner, after a time, 
intolerable. For want of a better term, for I am not sure 
that we have in our own language any one word that ex- 
actly expresses the feeling now under consideration, we 
may borrow of the French the somewhat expressive term 
ennui^ by which to designate this form of the sensibility. 

Use of Ennui, — There can be little doubt that this feel- 
ing subserves a valuable purpose in the constitution and 
economy of our nature. It is the needed motive and stimu- 
lus to action, without which we should settle down often 
into a sluggish indifference and contentment with things aa 
they are, instead of pressing forward to something worthier 
and better. 

§ lY. — Enjoyment op the Beautiful and Sublime. 

JTie Enjoy menty as distinguished from the intellectual 
Perception of the Beautiful, — Of the idea of the beautiful, 
and of the action of the mind as cognizant of it, in so far as 
regards the intellectual faculties, I have already treated in 
another connection. But it is not the intellect alone that 
comes under the influence of the beautiful. What the sense 
perceives, what the taste and judgment recognize and ap- 
prove, the sensibility is quick to feel. Emotion is awakened. 
No sooner is a beautiful object perceived in nature or art, 
than we are conscious of lively sensations of pleasure. So 
strong and so universal are these feelings, that many wi'itera 
have been led to speak of beauty itself, as if it were an emo 



428 RATION/.L EMOTIONS 

tion, a merely subjective matter, an affair of feeling merely. 
The incorrectness of this view has been already shown, a£i(J 
we need not enter upon the discussion anew. 

Tlie term Admiration. — The feeling awakened by the 
perception of the beautiful, like some other feelings of which 
we are conscious, has not a name that precisely designates 
it; hence the expression — ambiguous, and, therefore, objec- 
tionable — emotions of beauty, employed by certain writers 
to denote the feeling in question. The word admiration^ 
though often used in a somewhat wider sense, perhaps more 
nearly expresses the emotion to which I refer, than any 
other word in our language. We are surprised at what is 
new and strange. We admire what is beautiful and sublime. 
The feeling is one of pure and unalloyed pleasure, mingled 
with more or less of wonder or surprise, in case the object 
contemplated is one which is new to us, or one of rare and 
surpassing beauty. As the beautiful has its opposite — the 
deformed or ugly — so the feeling which it awakens stands 
contrasted with an opposite emotion, viz., disgust. 

In connection with this form of sensibility, there are some 
questions requiring consideration. 

Whether the Emotion is immediate, — It is a question 
somewhat debated, whether the emotions awakened by the 
beautiful and sublime are immediate, or reflective ; whether 
they spring up at once on perception of the object, or only 
as the result of reflection and reasoning. Those who main- 
tain that beauty consists in utility, or in order and propor- 
tion, fitness, unity with variety, etc., must, of course, regard 
the emotions awakened by it as not immediate, since, ac- 
cording to their theory, time must be allowed for the under- 
standing to convince itself, in the first place, that the object 
is useful, etc. The qualities constituting the beauty must 
be first apprehended by the mind as existing in the object 
before there can be emotion, and to do this is the work of 
reflection. If, however, beauty is but the expression of the 
invisible under the visible and sensible forms, then all thai 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 42?» 

is necessary to produce emotion is simply the perception of 
tbe object thus expressive, since the moment it is perceived, 
it is perceived as expressing sometliing, and thus, appeaUnoj 
to our own spiritual nature, awakens immediate emotion. 

How to he decided, — The question must be decided by 
the observation of facts, and the result will constitute an ad- 
ditional argument in favor of one, or the other, of the gen- 
eral views of the beautiful now named. What then are the 
facts in the case, as given by consciousness, and observation ? 

Testhnony of Consciousness, — So far as I can judge, no 
sooner do we find ourselves in presence of a beautiful object 
than we are conscious of emotions of pleasure. There is no 
previous cross-questioning of the object to find out whether 
it is adapted to this or that useful eijd, or whether the rules 
of order, and proportion, are observed m its construction. 
Before we have time to think of these things, the sensi- 
bility has already responded to the appeal which beauty ever 
makes to our sensitive nature, and the first distinct fact 
of which we are conscious is an emotion of pleasure. 

Effect of Repetition, — Consciousness assures us, more 
over, that the pleasure is usually quite as vivid at the first 
sight of a beautiful object as ever after, which would indi« 
cate that it is not the result of reflection. In truth, repetition 
is found, in most cases, to weaken the emotion, and familiarity 
may even destroy it. Yet every repetition adds to our op- 
portunity for observation and reflection, and strengthens our 
conviction of the utility, the order, the fitness, the propor* 
tion, of that which we observe. 

Critical Reflection subsequent to Emotion, — It seems 
evident, moreover, that whatever reflections of this nature 
we may choose to indulge, are uniformly subsequent to the 
first emotion of pleasure and delight, to the first impression 
made upon us by the beauty of the object — after-thoughts 
readily to be distinguished from those fii*st impressions — 
and that they are usually the result of a special volition to 
inform ourselves as to theso matters ; whereas the emotion 



mo RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

is spoutai eons and involuntary. Doubtless a pleasure arises 
from the perception of the qualities referred to, but it is a 
pleasure of another kind 'from that which arises in view of 
the beautiful, as such. We must think, then, that the 
emotions awakened by the beautiful are immediate, net 
reflective. 

Further Question, — Closely allied to the preceding is 
the question. Which precedes the other, the emotion which 
a beautiful object awakens, or the judgment of the mind 
that the object is beautiful. Logically, doubtless, the two 
things may be distinguished, but not, peihaps, in order of 
Lime. No sooner is the object perceived, than it is both 
perceived and felt to be beautiful. The emotion awakened 
and the mental affirmation, " That is beautiful," are both 
immediate on the perception of the object, synchronous 
events, so far as concerns at least our ability to distinguish 
between them in point of time. 

Logically^ Emotion precedes, — In point of logical rela- 
tion, the emotion, I think, must be allowed the precedence, 
although so high an authority as Kant decides otherwise. 
Had we no emotion in view of the beautiful, we should 
not know that it was beautiful. As, universally, sensation is 
the indispensable condition of perception, and logically, at 
least, its antecedent, so here the feeling of the beautiful isi 
the condition and source of the perception of the beautiful. 
The object strikes us as being so, moves us, affects us, pro- 
duces on us the impression, and hence we say, " That is 
beautiful." Had we no susceptibility of emotion in view of 
the beautiful, it may be seriously questioned whether we 
should ever have the perception or impression that any given 
object is beautiful. 

The JBeautiful as distinguished from the Sublime — 
There is still another point deserving attention. In discus- 
sing the aesthetic emotions, we have spoken as yet only of 
the feeling awakened by the heautifi'l. How do these ema 
tiions differ — in degree merely — or in natur'^ ? 



KATIONAL EM0TI0N8 431 

The Opinion that they differ only in Degnee. — Scmo have 
niaiDtained that subHmity is only a higher degree of what 
we call beauty. A little stream playing among the hills and 
tumbling over the rocks is beautiful ; a little further on, as 
it grov>^s larger, and swifter, and stronger, it becomes sub- 
lime. If this be so, it is a very simple matter : the survey- 
or's chain, or a ten foot pole, will, at any time, give us the 
difference, and enable us to determine at once whether a 
river or a mountain is merely pretty, or sublime. 

Different Emotions excited by each, — If they differ in 
kind^ however, and not merely in quantity, it may not be 
so easy to tell just what the difference is. We can best de- 
tect it, perhaps, by observing carefully the difference of the 
emotions excited in us by the two classes of objects. I con- 
template an object, which, in common with all the world, I 
call beautiful. What emotion does that object awaken in 
me ? An emotion of pleasure and delight, for which I can 
find, perhaps, no better name than admiration. I contem- 
plate now another object which men call sublime. What 
now are my emotions ? Admiration there may be, but not, 
as before, a calm, placid delight ; far otherwise. An admi- 
ration mingled with awe, a sense of greatness and of power 
in the object now oppresses me, and I stand as before some 
superior being, or element, in whose presence I feel my com- 
parative feebleness and insignificance. 

The Sublime co7iveys the Idea of superior Power, — Ac- 
cordingly we find that the objects which men call sublime 
are invariably such as are fitted to awaken such emotions. 
They are objects which convey the idea of superior forc^ 
and power — something grand in its dimensions or in its 
strength — something vast and illimitable, beyond our com- 
prehension and control. The boundless expanse of the 
ocean, the prairie, or the pathless desert, the huge mass of 
some lofty mountain, the resistless cataract, the awfid crash 
of the thunder, as it rolls along the trembling firmameni, 
the roar of the sea ir a storm when it lifteth up its waves (^ 



482 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

high, the movements of an army on the battle-field -— theso^ 
and such as these, are the objects we call sublhne. The lit« 
tie may be beautiful, it is never sublime. Nor is the mei elj 
great always so, but only when it conveys the idea of supe- 
rior power. Montmorenci is beautiful, Niagara is sublime. 
A Swiss valley, nestling among the hills, is beautiful ; the 
mountains that tower above it through the overhanging 
clouds into the pure upper sky, and in the calm, serene 
majesty of their strength stand looking down upon the slum- 
bering world at their feet, and all the insignificance of man 
and his little aflfairs, are sublime. 

The Sublime and the Beautiful associated, — Nor is the 
i?ublime always unassociated with the beautiful. Niagara is 
not more sublime than beautiful. The deep emerald hue of 
the waters as they plunge, the bow on the mist, the foam 
sparkling in the abyss below, are each among the most beau 
tiful objects in nature. The sublime and the beautiful are 
otlen mingled thus, distinct elements, but conjoined in the 
same object. The highest aesthetic efiect is produced by 
this combination. The beauty tempers the sublimity ; the 
sublimity elevates and ennobles the beauty. It is thus at 
Niagara. It is thus when the sunrise flashes along tlie suii 
mits of the snowy Alps. 

The Beautiful tranquilizes^ the Sublime agitates, — The 
beautiful pleases us ; so, in a sense, does the sublime. Both 
produce agreeable emotions. Yet they difier. In the en- 
joyment of the beautiful there is a calm, quiet pleasure; 
the mind is at rest, undisturbed, can at its leisure and sweet 
will admire the delicacy and elegance of that which fills it 
wifh delight. But in the perception of the sublime it is 
otherwise. The mind is agitated, is in sympathy with the 
stir, and strife, and play of the fierce elements, or is op- 
pressed with the feeling of its own insignificance, as con- 
trasted with the stern majesty and strength of what it 
contemplates. Hence the sublime takes a deeper hold on the 
mind than the merely beautiful, awes it, elevates it, rouses 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 433 

its slumbering energies, quickens the slow course of thought, 
and makes it live, in brief moments, whole hours and days 
of ordinary life. The beautiful charms and soothes us ; the 
sublime subdues us and leads us captive. The one awakens 
our sympath}^ and love, the other rouses in us all that is 
noble, serious, and great in our nature. 

Relation of the Sublime to Fear. — The relation of the 
sublime to fear has been noticed by several writers. Mem- 
delssohn, Ancillon, Kant, Jouflfroy, Blair, have spoken of it, 
as well as Burke. The latter was not far from right in his 
theory of fear as an element of the sublime. It were better 
to say awe than fear, for the boldest and stoutest hearts are 
fully susceptible of it ; and it were better to speak of it as 
an element of our emotion in view of the sublime, than as 
an element of the sublime itself. 

Cultivation of cBsthetic Sensibility, — I cannot, in this 
connection, entirely pass without notice a topic requiring 
much more careful consideration than my present limits will 
permit — the cultivation of the aesthetic sensibility — of a 
love for the beautiful. 

TJiis Culture neglected, — The love of the beautiful is 
merely one of the manifold forms of the sensibility, and, in 
common with every other feeling and propensity of our 
nature, it may be augmented, quickened, strengthened to a 
very great degree by due culture and exercise. It is an en- 
dowment of nature, but, like other native endowments, it 
may be neglected and suffered to die out. This, unfortu- 
nately, is too frequently the case with those especially who 
are engaged in the active pursuits of life. The time and 
the attention are demanded for other and more important 
matters, and so the merely beautiful is passed by unheeded. 
It admits of question, whether it is not a serious defect in 
our systems of education, that so little attention is paid to 
the culture of the taste, and of a true love for the beautiful. 
The means of such a culture are ever at hand. The great 
works and the most perfect models in art are not, indeed, 



434 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

accessible to all. Not every one can cross the seas to stud^v 
the frescoes of Raphael and Michael Angelo. But around 
us in nature, along our daily paths, are the works of a greater 
Artist, and no intelligent and thoughtful mind need be unob- 
servant of their beauty. Nor is there danger, as some may 
apprehend, that we shall carry this matter to excess. The 
tendencies of our age and of our country are wholly the 
reverse. The danger is rather that in the activity and ener- 
gy of our new life, the higher culture will be overlooked^ 
and the love of the beautiful die out. 

Value of this Principle. — The love of the beautiful is 
the source of some of the purest and most exquisite pleasures 
of life. It is the gift of God in the creation and endowment 
of the human soul. Nature lays the foundation for it among 
her earliest developments. The child is, by nature, a lover 
of the beautiful. Nor is it in early life alone that this prin- 
ciple has its natural and normal developments. On the con. 
trary, under favorable circumstances, it grows stronger and 
more active as the mind matures, and the years pass on. 
Happy he who, even in old age, keeps fresh in his heart this 
pure and beautiful fountain of his youth ; who, as days ad- 
vance, and shadows lengthen, and sense grows dull, can still 
look, with all the admiration and delight of his childish years, 
on whatever is truly beautiful in the works of God ox man. 

§ V. — Satisfaction in Yiew of Right Conduct, and Remobsr di 

YiEW OF V^RONa 

TTie Feeling^ as distinguished from the Perception of 
Right, — In the chapter on the Idea and Cognizance of the 
Right, the notion of right, in itself considered, and also the 
mind's action as cognizant of the right, so fai ^t least as con- 
3erns the intellectual faculties thus employed, were fully dis- 
cussed. It is not necessary now to enter again upon the 
investigation of these topics. But, as in the cognizance of 
the beautiful, so in the cognizance of the right, not onl> it 



^ 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 435 

tlie intellect exercised, but the sensibilii/ also is arou^Sbd. 
As consequent upon the perceptions of the intellect, emotion 
is awakened ; and that emotion is both definite and strong. 
It is peculiar in its operation. No emotion that stirs the 
numan bosom is more uniform in its development, more 
strongly marked in its character, or exerts a deeper and 
more permanent influence on the happiness and destiny of 
man, than the satisfaction with which he views the virtuous 
conduct of a well-spent hour or a well-spent life, and the regret, 
amounting sometimes to remorse, with which, on the contrary, 
he looks back upon the misdeeds and follies of the past. Of all 
the forms of joy and sorrow that cast their lights and shadows 
over the checkered scene and pathway of human existence, 
there are none which, aside from their ethical relations, are 
of deeper interest to the psychologist, or more worthy his 
careful study, than the emotions to which I now refer. 

The moral Faculty not resolvable into moral Feeling, — 
So deeply have certain writers been impressed with the im- 
portance of this part of our nature, that they have not hesi- 
tated to resolve the moral faculty itself into the emotions 
now under consideration, and to make the recognition of 
moral distinctions ultimately a mere matter of feeling. This, 
whether regarded ethically, or psychologically, is certainly a 
great mistake, fatal in either case to the true science whether 
of morals or of mind. Right and wrong, as also the beau- 
tiful and its opposite, are not mere conceptions of the human 
mind. They have an actual objective existence and reality 
and, as such, are cognized by the mind, which perceives a 
given act to be right or wrong, and, as such, obligatory or the 
opposite, and approves or condemns the deed, and the doer, 
accordingly. So far the intellect is concerned. But the 
process does not stop here. Sensibility is awakened. The 
verdict and calm decisions of the judgment are taken up by 
the feelings, and made the basis and occasion of a new foi-m 
of mental activity. It is with this excitement of the sensi- 
bility in view of coi duct as right or wrong, that we are nt^w 



436 RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

r^oncerned, and while we can by no means resolve a/l ov** 
moral perceptions and judgments into this class of emotiv^ns, 
we would still assign it an important place among the various 
forms of mental activity. 

Not limited to our own Conduct, — The emotion of which 
we speak is not limited to the occasions of our own moraJ 
conduct ; it arises, also, in view of the moral actions of others, 
A good deed, an act of generosity, magnanimity, courage, 
by whomsoever performed, meets our approbation, and 
awakens in our bosoms feelings of pleasure. If the act is 
one of more than ordinary heroism and self-sacrifice, we 
are filled with admiration. Instances of the opposite excite 
our displeasure and disgust. N o small part of the interest 
with which we trace the records of history, or the pages of 
romance, arises from that constant play of the feelings with 
which we watch the course of events^ and the development 
of character, as corresponding to or at variance with the d^ 
mands of our moral nature. 

A good Conscience an Object of universal Desire, — But 
It is chiefly when we become ourselves the actors, and the 
decisions of conscience respect our own good or evil deeds, 
that we learn the true nature and power of the moral emo- 
tions. A good conscience, it has been said, is the only ob- 
ject of universal desire, since even bad men wish, though in 
vain, for the happiness which it confers. It would perhaps 
be more correct to say that an accusing conscience is an 
object of universal dread. But m either case, whether for 
approval or condemnation, very great is its power over the 
human mind. 

Sustaining Power of a good Conscience, — We all know 
something of it, not only by the observation of others, but 
by the consciousness of our own inner life. In the testi- 
mony of a good conscience, in its calm, deliberate approval 
of our conduct, lies one of the sweetest and purest of the 
pleasures of life ; a source of enjoyment whose springs are 
beyond the reach of accident or envy; a fountam in tha 



RATIONAL EMOTIONS. 437 

desert making glad the wilderness and the solitary place. 
It has, moreover, a sustaining power. The consciousness of 
rectitude, the approval of the still small voice within, that 
whispers in the moment of danger and weakness, " You are 
right^'^ imparts to the fainting soul a courage and a strength 
that can come from no other source. Under its influence 
the soul is elevated above the violence of pain, and the press- 
ure of outward calamity. The timid become bold, the 
weak are made strong. Here lies the secret of much of the 
heroism that adorns the annals of martyrdom and of the 
church. Women and children, frail and feeble by nature, 
ill fitted to withstand the force of public opinion, and 
shrinking from the very thought of pain and suffering, have 
calmly faced th^i angry reproaches of the multitude, and res- 
olutely met deaih in its most terrific forms, sustained by the 
power of an approving conscience, whose decisions were, to 
them, of more consequence than the applause or censure of 
the world, and whose sustaining power bore them, as on a 
prophet's chariot of fire, above the pains of torture and the 
rage of infuriated men. 

Power of Remorse* — Not less is the power of an accus- 
ing conscience. Its disapprobation and censure, though 
clothed with no external authority, are more to be dreaded 
than the frowns of kings or the approach of armies. It is 
a silent constant presence that cannot be escaped, and will 
not be pacified. It embitters the happiness of life, cuts the 
sinews of the soul's inherent strength. It is a fire in the 
bones, burning when no man suspects but he only who ia 
doomed to its endurance; a girdle of thorns worn next 
the heart, concealed, it may be, from the eye of man, but 
giving the wearer no rest, day nor night. Its accusations 
are not loud, but to the guilty soul they are tenible, pene- 
trating her inmost recesses, and making her to tremble a? 
the forest trembles at the roar of the enraged lion, as the 
deep sea trembles in her silent depths, when her Creator 
goeth by on the wings of the temp<^st, and the God uf glory 



438 KATIONAL EMOTIONS. 

thuuderetli. The bold bad man bears that accusing voioe, 
and bis strength departs from bim, Tbe beart tbat is inured 
to all evil, and grown bard in sin, and fears not tbe face of 
man, nor tbe law of God, bears it, and becomes as tbe beart 
of a cbild. 

How terrible is remorse ! tbat worm tbat never dies, tbat 
fire tbat never goes out. We cannot follow tbe buman soul 
beyond tbe confines of its present existence. But it is an 
opinion entertained by some, and in itself not improbable, 
tbat, in tbe future, conscience will act witb greatly increased 
power. Wben tbe causes tbat now conspire to prevent its 
full development and perfect action, sball operate no longer; 
wben tbe tumult of tbe marcb and tbe battle are over ; 
wben tbe cares, tbe pleasures, tbe temptations, tbe vain 
pursuits, tbat now distract tbe mind witb tbeir confused up- 
roar, sball die away in tbe distance, and cease to be beard, 
in tbe stillness of eternity, in tbe silence of a purely spiritual 
existence, tbe still small voice of conscience may perhaps be 
beard as never before. In tbe busy day-time we catch, at 
intervals, tbe sound of tbe distant ocean, as a low and gentle 
murmur. In tbe still night, when all is bushed, we bear it 
beating, in heavy and constant surges, on tbe shore. And 
thus it may be witb tte power of coriscience in tbe future. 



SENSIBILITIES. 



PART SECOND. 



THE AFFECTIONS 



THE AFFECTIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 



Character of the Affections as a Class. — Of the three 
generic classes mto which the sensibihties were divided, viz., 
Simple Emotions, Affections, and Desires, the first alone has, 
thus far, engaged our attention. We now approach the 
second. It will be remembered that, in our analysis of the 
sensibilities, the Affections were distinguished fi'om the 
Simple Emotions, as being of a complex eharacter, involv- 
mg, along with the feeling of delight and satisfaction in tho 
object, or the reverse, the wish, more or less definite and 
intense, of good or ill to the object that awakens the emo- 
tion. The feeling thus assumes an active and transitive form, 
going forth from itself, and even forgetting itself, in its care 
for the object. 

Sow divided, — The affections, it will also be remembereu, 
were further divided into the benevolent and malevolent^ ac- 
cording as they seek the good or the ill of the object on 
which they fasten. As the simple emotions are but so many 
forms of joy and sorrow^ so, likewise, the affections are but 
so many modifications of the principle of love and its oppo- 
site, Jiate, 

.Effects upon the Character in their marJced Development. 
— When these give tone to the general character of an in 
dividual, he becomes the philanthropist or misanthropist, tht 

19* 



4:42 BENEVOLEKT AFFECTIONS. . 

man of kind and gentle disposition, or the hater of his racOi 
according as the one or the other principle predominates. 

Roused to more than ordinary activity, breaking away 
from the restraints of reason, and the dictates of sober judg- 
ment, assuming the command of the soul, and urging it on 
to a given end, regardless of other and higher interests, 
these affections assume the name of passions^ and the spec- 
tacle is presented of a man driven blindly and madly to the 
accomplishment of his wishes, as the ship, dismantled, drives 
before the storm ; or else, in stern conflict with himself and 
the feelings that nature has implanted in his bosom, con- 
trolling with steady hand his own restless and fiery spirit. 

JRelation to the simple Emotions. — The relation which 
the affections, as a class, bear to the simple emotions, de- 
serves a moment's attention. The one class naturally fol- 
lows and grows out ©f the other. What we enjoy, we come 
naturally to regard with feelings of affection, while that 
which causes pain, naturally awakens feelings of dislike and 
aversion. So love and hate succeed to joy and sorrow in 
our hearts, as regards the objects contemplated. The simple 
emotions precede and give rise to the affections. 

Enum^eration. - — The benevolent affections, to which we 
confine our attention in the present chapter, assume different 
forms, according to their respective objects. 

The more prominent are, love of kindred^ love of friends^ 
love of benefactors^ love of home and country. Of these we 
ihall treat in their order. 

§ L — Love of Kindred. 

Includes what. — Under this head we may include the 
parental^ the Jilial^ and the fraternal affection, as modifica- 
tions of the same principle, varying according to the varying 
relations of the parties concerned. 

Does not grow out of the Relations of the Parties. — That 
the affection grows out of the relations sustained by the par- 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 443 

ties to each other, I am not prepared to affirm, although 
some have taken this view ; I should be disposed rather to 
regard it as an implanted and original principle of our na^ 
ture ; stjjl, that it is very much influenced and augmented by 
those relations, and that it is manifestly adapted to them, no 
one, I think, can deny. 

£ut adapted to that lielation, — How intimate and how 
peculiar the relation, for example, that subsists between 
parent and child, and how deep and strong the afiection 
that binds the heart of the parent to the person and well- 
Deing of his offspring. The one corresponds to the other ; 
the affection to the relation ; and the duties which that 
relation imposes, and all the kind offices, the care, and at- 
tention which it demands, how cheerfully are they met and 
fulfilled, as prompted by the strength and constancy of that 
affection. Without that affection, the relation might still 
exist, requiring the same kind offices, and the same assiduous 
care, and reason might point out the propriety and necessity 
of their performance, but how inadequate, as motives to ac- 
tion, would be the dictates of reason, the sense of propriety, 
or even the indispensable necessity of the case, as compared 
with that strong and tender parental affection which makes 
all those labors pleasant, and all those sacrifices light, which 
are endured for the sake of the helpless ones confided to its 
care. There was need of just this principle of our nature to 
meet the demands and manifold duties arising from the re- 
lation to which we refer ; and in no part of the constitution 
of the mund is the benevolence of the great Designer more 
manifest. What but love could sustain the weary mother 
during the long and anxious nights of watching by the 
fiouch of her suffering child ? What but love could prompt 
to the many sacrifices and privations cheerfully endured for 
its welfare ? Herself famished with hunger, she divides the 
last morsel among those who cry to her for bread. Herself 
perishing with cold, she draws the mantle from her own 
fihoulderfi to protect the little one at her side from the fury 



t44 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

of the blast. She freely perils her own life for the safety of 
her child. These instances, while they show the strength of 
that affection which can prompt to such privation and self- 
sacrifice, show, also, the end which it was designed to sub- 
serve, and its adaptation to that end. 

TTiis Affection universal. — The parental affection is uni- 
versal, not peculiar to any nation, or any age, or any condi- 
tion of society. Nor is it strong in one case, and weak in 
another, but everywhere and always one of the strongest 
and most active principles of our nature. Nor is it peculiar 
to our race. It is an emotion shared by man in common 
with the lower orders of intelligence. The brute-beast 
manifests as strong an affection for her offspring, as man 
under the like circumstances exhibits. The white bear of 
the arctic glaciers, pursued by the hunter, throws herself 
between him and her cub, and dies in its defence. 

All these circumstances, the precise adaptation of the sen- 
sibility in question to the peculiar exigencies it seemed de- 
signed to meet, the strength and constancy of that affection, 
the universality of its operation, and the fact that is common 
to man with the brute, all go to show that the principle now 
under consideration must be regarded as an instinctive and 
original principle, implanted in our nature by the hand that 
formed us. 

Strey}gtliened by Circumstances, — But though an original 
principle, and, therefore, not derived from habit or circum- 
stance, there can be no doubt that the affection of which we 
speak is greatly modified, and strengthened, by the circum- 
stances in which the parent and child are placed with respect 
to each other, and also by the power of habit. Like most 
of our active principles, it finds, in its own use and exercise, 
the law of its growth. So true is this, that when the care 
and guardianship of the child are transferred to other hands, 
there springs up something of the parent's love, in the heart 
to which has been confided this new trust. It seems to be 
a law of our nature that we love those who are dependent 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 445 

on us, who confide in us, and for whom we are required to 
exert ourselves. The more dependent and helpless the ob- 
ject of our solicitude, and the greater the sacrifice we make, 
or the toil we endure, in its behalf, the greater our regard 
and afiection for it. If in the little group that gathers 
around the poor man's scanty board, or evening fireside, 
there is one more tenderly loved than another, one on whom 
his eye more frequently rests, or with more tender solicitude 
than on the others, it is that one over whose sick-bed he has 
most frequently bent with anxiety, and for whose benefit he 
has so often denied himself the comforts of life. By every 
sacrifice thus made, by every hour of toil and privation cheer- 
fully endured, by every watchful, anxious night, and every 
day of unremitting care and devotion, is the parental affection 
strengthened. And to the operation of the same law of our 
nature is doubtless to be attributed the regard which is felt, 
under similar circumstances, by those who are not parents, 
for the objects of their care. But it may reasonably be 
doubted whether, in such case, the affection, although of the 
same nature, ever equals, in intensity and fervor, the depth 
and strength of a parent's love. 

Strongest in the Mother, — The parental affection, though 
common to both sexes, finds its most perfect development 
m the heart of the mother. Whether this is the natural re- 
sult of the principle already referred to, the care and effort 
that devolve in greater degree upon the mother, and awaken 
a love proportionably stronger, or whether it is an origmal 
provision of nature to meet the necessity of the case, we caa 
but see in the fact referred to a beautiful adaptation of our 
nature to the circumstances that surround us. 

Stronger in the Parent than in the Child, — The love of 
the parent for the child is stronger than that of the child for 
the parent. There was need that it should be so. Yet is 
there no affection, of all those that find a place in the human 
heart, more beautiful and touching than filial love. Nor, 
on the contrary, is there any one aspect of human nature. 



446 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

imperfect as it is, so sad and revolting as the spectacle som& 
times presented, of filial ingratitude, a spectacle sure to 
awaken the indignation and abhorrence of every generous 
heart. When the son, grown to manhood, forgets the aged 
mother that bore him, and is ashamed to support hxjiL totter- 
ing steps, or leaves to loneliness and want th e father whose 
whole life has been one of care and toil for him, he receives, 
as he deserves, the contempt of even the thoughtless world, 
and the scorn of every man whose opinion is worth regarding, 

There have not been wanting noble instances of the 
strength of the filial affection. If parents have voluntayily 
incurred death to save their children, so, also, though per- 
haps less frequently, have children met death to save a 
parent. 

Value of these Affections, — The parental and filial affec- 
tions lie at the foundation of the social virtues. They form 
the heart to all that is most noble and elevating, and consti 
tute the foundation of all that is truly great and valuable in 
character. Deprived of these influences, men may, indeed, 
become useful and honorable members of society — such cases 
have occurred — but rather as exceptions to the rule. It is 
under the genial influences of home, and parental care and 
love, that the better qualities of mind and heart are most favor- 
ably and surely developed, and the character most success- 
fully formed for the conflicts and temptations of future life. 

Not inconsistent with the manly Virtues, — Nor is the 
gentleness implied in the domestic affections inconsistent 
with those sterner qualities of character, which history ad 
mires in her truly great and heroic lives. Poets have known 
this, painters have seized upon it, critics have pointed it out 
in the best ideal delineations, both of ancient and of modern 
times. It softens the gloomy and otherwise forbidding char 
acter of stern Achilles ; it invests with superior beauty, and 
almost sacredness, the aged Priam suing for the dead body 
of Hector ; it constitutes one of the brightest ornaments with 
which Virgil knew hew to adorn the character of the hero 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 447 

<5f tLe ^neid, while in the affection of IN'apoleon foi hia 
son, and in the grief of Cromwell for the death of his daugh- 
ter, the domestic affection shines forth in contrast with the 
strong and troubled scenes of eventful public life, as a gen- 
tle star glitters on the brow of night. 



§ II. — Love op Friends. 

Much said in Praise of Friendship. — Among the benev- 
olent affections that find a place in the human heart, Mend 
ship has ever been regarded as one of the purest and no- 
blest. Poets and moralists have vied with each other in its 
praise. Even those philosophers who have derived all our 
active principles from self-love have admitted this to a place 
among the least selfish of our emotions. There can be no 
doubt that it is a demand of our nature, a part of our ori- 
ginal constitution. The man who, among all his fellows, 
finds no one in whom he delights, and whom he calls his 
fiiend, must be wanting in some of the best traits and qual- 
ities of our common humanity, while, on the other hand, 
pure and elevated friendship is a naark of a generous and 
noble mind. 

On what Circumstances it depends. — If we inquire 
whence arises this emotion in any given case, on what prin- 
ciples or circumstances it is founded, we shall find that, 
while other causes have much to do with it, it depends 
chiefly on the more or less intimate acquaintance of the 
parties. There must, indeed, be on our part some perception 
of high and noble qualities belonging to him whom we call 
our friend, and some appreciation, also, of those qualities. 
We must admire his genius, or his courage, or his manly 
strength and prowess, or his moral virtues, or, at least, his 
position and success. All these things come in to modify 
our estimate and opinion of the man, and may be said to 
underlie our friendship for him. Stil], it is not so much 
from these cii'cumstances, as from personal and intimat(? ao- 



448 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

cjuaintance, that friendship most directly springs. Admira 
tion and respect for the high qualities and noble charactei 
of another, are not themselves friendship, however closely 
related to it. They may be, and doubtless are, to some ex- 
tent, the foundation on which that affection rests, but they 
are not its immediately producing cause. They may exist 
where no opportunity for personal acquaintance is afforded, 
while, on the other hand, a simple and long-continued ac« 
quaintance, with one whom we, perhaps, should not, in our 
own candid judgment, pronounce superior to other men^ 
either in genius, or fortune, or the nobler qualities of the 
soul, may, nevertheless, ripen into strong and lasting friend- 
ship. 

How Acquaintance leads to Friendship, — To what is this 
owing ? Not so much, I suspect, to the fact that acquaint- 
ance reveals always something to admire, even in those 
whom we had not previously regarded with special defer- 
ence — although this, I am willing to admit, may be the case 
— but rather to that simple law of mental activity which wo 
call association. The friend whom we have long and inti- 
mately known, the friend of other, and earlier, and, it may 
be, happier years, is intimately connected with our owt* 
history. His life and our own have run side by side, oi 
rather, like vines springing from separate roots, have inter- 
twined their branches until they present themselves as om 
to the eye. It is this close connection of my friend with 
whatever pertains to myself, of his history with my history, 
and his life with my life, that contributes in great measure 
to the regard and interest I feel for him. He has become, 
as it w^ere, a part of myself. The thought of him awakeni 
m my mind pleasing remembrances, and is associated with 
agreeable conceptions of the walks, the studies, the sports, 
the varied enjoyments and the varied sorrows that we have 
shared together. 

Regard for inanimate Objects, — The same principle ex 
tends also to inanimate objects, as places and scenes with 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 449 

which we have become familiar, the meadows throagh 
which we roamed in childhood, the books we read, the 
rooms we inhabited, even the instruments of our daily toiL 
These all become associated with ourselves, we form a sort 
of friendship for them. The prisoner who has spent long 
years of confinement in his solitary cell, forms a species of 
attachment for the very walls that have shut him in, and 
looks upon them for the last time, when at length the hour 
of deliverance arrives, not without a measure of regret. 
The sword that has been often used in battle is thenceforth, 
to the old soldier, the visible representative of many a hard- 
fought field, and many a perilous adventure. Uncouth and 
rusty it may be, ill-formed, and unadorned, in its plain and 
clumsy iron scabbard, but its owner would not exchange it 
for one of solid gold. It is not strange that the principle 
of association, which attaches us so closely even to inani- 
mate objects, should enter largely as an element into the 
friendships we form with our own species. 

Other Causes auxiliary. — I would by no means den}', 
nowever, that other causes may, and usually do, contribute 
to the same result. Mere acquaintance and companionship 
do not, of necessity, nor invariably, amount to friendship. 
There must be some degree of sympathy, and congeniality 
of thought and feeling, some community of interests, pur- 
suits, desires, hopes, something in common between the two 
minds, or no friendship will spring up between them. Ac- 
quaintance, and participation in the same scenes and pursuits, 
fiirnish, to some extent, this common ground. But even 
iV'here this previous companionship is wanting, there may 
exist such congeniality and sympathy between two minds, 
the tastes and feelings, the aims and aspirations of each may 
K)Q so fully in unison, that each shall feel itself drawn to the 
other, with a regard which needs only time and opportunity 
to ripen into strong and lasting friendship. 

Dissimilarity not inconsistent with Friendship, — Nor ia 
it necessary, in order to true friendshin, that there should be 



450 



BENEVOLENT AFF I C T 10 N S. 



complete isimilarity or agreement. The greatest diversity 
even may exist m many respects, whether as to qualities of 
mind, or traits of character. Indeed, such diversity, to some 
extent, must be regarded as favorable to friendship, rather 
than otherwise. We admire, often, in others, the very 
quaUties which we perceive to be lacking in ourselves, and 
choose for our friends those whose richer endowments in 
these respects may compensate in a measure for our own 
deficiencies. The strongest friendships are often formed in 
this way by persons whose characters present striking points 
of contrast. Such diversity, in respect to natural gifts and 
traits of character, is not inconsistent with the closest sym- ^ 
pathy of views and feelings in regard to other matters, and 
therefore not inconsistent with the warmest friendship. 

Limitation of the Number of Friends, — It was, perhaps, 
an idle question, discussed in the ancient schools of philoso- 
phy, whether true friendship can subsist between more than 
two persons. No reason can be shown why this affection 
should be thus exclusive, nor do facts seem to justify such a 
limitation. The addition of a new friend to the circle of mv 
acquaintance does not necessarily detract aught from the 
affection I bear to my former friends, nor does it awaken 
suspicion or jealousy on their part. In this respect, friend- 
ship is unlike the love which exists between the sexes, and 
which is exclusivfc^ in its nature. 

It must be admitted, at the same time, that there are 
limits to this extension, and that he who numbers a large 
circle of friends is not likely to form a very strong attach 
ment for any one of them. Not unfrequently, indeed, a 
fi-iendship thus unlimited is the mark, as Mr. Stewart sug- 
gests, of a cold and selfish character, prompted to seek the 
acquaintance of others by a regard to his own advantage, 
and a desire for society, rather than by any real attachment 
to those whose companionship he solicits. True and genuine 
friendship is usually more select in its choice, and is whDlly 
disinterested in its character. A cold and calculating policj 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 451 

forms no part of its nature. It springs from no s(3lfish or 
even prudential considerations. It burns with a pure and 
steady flame in the heart that cherishes it, and burns on 
even when the object of its regard is no longer on earth. 
Our friendships are not all with the living. We cherish the 
memory of those whom we no longer see, and welcome to 
the heart those whom we no longer welcome to our home 
and fireside. 

Effect of adventitious Circumstances, — Reverses in lite, 
changes in fortune, the accidents of health and sickness, of 
wealth and poverty, of station and influence, have little 
power to weaken the ties of true friendship once formed. 
They test, but do not impair its strength. True friendship 
only makes us cling the closer to our friend in his adversity ; 
and when fortune frowns, and the sunshine of popular favoi 
passes away, and " there is none so poor to do him rever- 
ence," whom once all men courted and admired, we still love 
him, who, in better days, showed himself worthy of our love 
and who, we feel, is none the less worthy of it, now that we 
must love him for what he ^5, and not for what he has. That 
is not worthy the name of friendship, which will not endure 
this test. 

Changes in moral Character, — Much more seriously is 
friendship endangered by any change of moral character and 
principle, on the part of either of the friends. So long as the 
change aflfects merely the person, the wealth, the social posi- 
tion, the power, the good name even, we feel that these are 
but the external* circumstances, the accidents, the surround- 
ings, and not the man himself, and however these things 
may vary, our friend remains the same. But when the 
change is in the heart and character of the man himself, 
when he whose sympathies and moral sentiment? were once 
in unison with our own, shows himself to be no longer wliai 
he once was, or what we fondly thought him tc be, there is 
no longer that community of thought and feeling between 
us that is essential to true and lasting friendship. Yet, 



452 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS, 

even in such a case, we continue to cherish for the friend 
of former years a regard and affection whicfi subsequent 
changes do not wholly efface. We think of him as he was^ 
and not as he is ; as he was in those earlier and better days^ 
when the heart was fresh and unspoiled, and the feet had 
not as yet turned aside from the paths of rectitude and 
honor ; 

§ III. — Love of Benefactoes. 

As related to Friendship, — Closely allied to the affections 
we feel for our friends is the emotion we cherish towards 
our benefactors. Like the former, it is one of the forms of 
that principle into which all kindly affection ultimately re- 
solves itself, namely, love, differing as the object differs on 
Avhich it rests, but one in nature under all these varieties of 
form. The love which we feel for a benefactor, differs 
from that which we feel for a friend, as the latter again 
differs from that which we feel for a parent or a child. 
It differs from friendship, in that the motive which prompted 
the benefaction, on the part of the giver, may be simple 
benevolence, and not personal regard ; while, on our part, 
the emotion awakened may be simple gratitude to the gene- 
rous donor, a gratitude which, though it may lead to friend- 
ship, is not itself the result of personal attachment. 

Nature of this Affection. — If we inquire more closely 
mto the nature of this affection, we find that it mvolves, as 
do all the benevolent affections, a feeling of pleasure or de- 
light, together with a benevolent regard for the object on 
which the affection rests. The pleasure, in this case, results 
from the reception of a favor. It is not, however, merely a 
pleasure in *the favor received, as in itself valuable, or as 
meeting our necessities; it is, over and beyond this, a pleasure 
in the giver as a noble and generous person, and as stand- 
ing in friendly relations to us. Such conceptions are always 
agreeable to the mind, and that in a high degree. The 
benevolent regard which we cherish for such a person, the 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 453 

disposition and wish to do him good in turn, are the natural 
result of this agreeable conception of him ; and the two 
t/Ogether, the pleasure, and the benevolent regard, constitute 
the complex emotion which we call gratitude. 

Regards the Giver rather than the Gift, — If this be the 
correct analysis of the affection now under consideration, it 
is not so much the gift^ as the giver ^ that awakens the emo- 
tion ; and this view is confirmed by the fact that when, from 
any circumstances, we are led to suspect a selfish motive on 
the part of the donor, that the gift was prompted, not so 
much by regard to us, as by regard to his own personal ends, 
for favors thus conferred we feel very little gratitude. The 
gift may be the same in either case, but not the giver. 

Modes of manifesting Gratitude, — Philosophers have 
noticed the different manner in which persons of different 
character, and mental constitution, are affected by the recep- 
tion of kindness from others, and the different modes in 
which their gratitude expresses itself. Some are much more 
sensibly affected than others by the same acts of kindness ; 
and even when gratitude may exist in equal degree, it is not 
always equally manifested. We naturally look, however, 
for some exhibition of it, in all cases, where favors have been 
conferred ; its due exhibition satisfies and pleases us ; its ab- 
sence gives us pain, and we set it down as indicative of a 
cold and selfish nature. 

A. disordered Sensibility indicated by the Absence of this 
Principle, — One of the most painful forms of disordered 
sensibility — the insanity, not of the intellect, but of the feel- 
ings — is that which manifests itself in the entire indifference 
and apathy with which the kindest attentions are received, 
or even worse, the ill-concealed and hardly-suppressed ha- 
tred which is felt even for the generous benefactor. A case 
of this sort is mentioned^ by Dr. Bell, the accomplished su- 
perintendent of the MacLean Asylum for the insane, as. 
coming under his notice, in which the patient, a lady, by nif 
means wanting in mental endowments, seemed utterly des* 



454 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS 

titute and incapable of natural affection. Having, cm ont 
occasion, received some mark of kindness from a devoted 
friend, she exclaimed, " I suppose I ought to love that per- 
son, and I should, if it were possible for me to love any one ; 
but it is not. I do not know what that feeling is." A more 
sad and wretched existence can hardly be conceived than 
that which is thus indicated — the deep night and winter of 
the Houl, a gloom unbroken by one ray of kindly feeling for 
any living thing, one gleam of sunshine on the darkened 
heart. Happily such cases are of rare occurrence. The 
kindness of men awakens a grateful response, in every human 
heart, whose right and normal action is not hindered by dis- 
order, or prevented by crime. 

Disorder of the moral Nature, — Is it not an indication 
of the imperfect and disordered condition of our moral na- 
ture, that while the little kindnesses of our fellow men awaken 
in our breasts lively emotions of gratitude, we receive, un- 
moved, the thousand benefits which the great Author of our 
being is daily and hourly conferring, with Httle gratitude to 
the giver of every good and perfect gift ? 

§ IT. — Love op Home and Countrt. 

Its proper Place. — Among the emotions which consti- 
tute our sensitive nature, the love of home and of country, 
or the patriotic emotion, holds a prominent rank. It falls 
into that class of feelings which we term affections, in- 
asmuch as it involves not only an emotion of pleasure, but 
a desire of good towards the object which awakens the 
feeling. 

Founded on the Separation of the Race, — The affecticD 
now to be considered implies, as its condition, the separation 
of the human race into families, tribes, and nations, and of 
its dwelling-places into corresponding divisions of territory 
and country, a division founded not more in human nature, 
than in the physical conditions and distributions of the 



BENEVOLENT AF FE C T 1 ':^S. 456 

globe, broken as it is into different countries, by mountain^ 
river, and sea. ISTo one can fail to perceive, in this arrange- 
ment, a design and provision for the distribution of the race 
into distinct states and nations. To this arrangement and 
design the nature of man corresponds. To him, in all his 
wanderings, there is no place like home, no land hke his native 
land. It may be barren and rugged, swept by the storms, 
and overshadowed by the frozen hills, of narrow boundary, 
and poor in resources, where life is but one continued 
struggle for existence with an inhospitable climate, unpro 
pitious seasons, and an unwilling soil ; but it i& his own land, 
it is his father-land, and sooner than he will see its soil in- 
vaded, or its name dishonored, he will shx^d the last drop of 
blood in its defence. 

Other Causes auxiliary, — The strong tendency to rivalry 
and war, between different tribes, tends, doubtless, to keep 
alive the patriotic sentiment, by binding each more closely 
to thf soil, which it finds obliged to defend at the sacrifice 
of treasure, and of life. The great diversity of language, 
manners, and customs, which prevails among different na- 
tions, must also tend very strongly to separate nations still 
more widely from each other, and bind them more closely 
to their own soil, and their own institutions. 

Effect of Civilization, — Such are some of the causes 
which give rise to the patriotic sentiment. Civilization 
tends, in a measure, doubtless, to diminish the activity of 
these causes. In proportion as society advances, as national 
jealousies and rivalries diminish, as wars become less frequent, 
as nations come to understand better each other's manners, 
laws, and languages, and to learn that their interests, appar- 
ently diverse, are really identical, this progress of civiliza- 
tion and culture, removing, as it does, in great measure, the 
barriers that have hitherto kept nations asunder, must tend, 
it would seem, to weaken the influence of those causes 
which contribute to keep alive the patriotic feeling. And 
such we believe to be the fact. It is in the early period of 



456 BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

a nation's existence, the period of its origin and growth, ol 
its weakness and danger, that the love of country most 
strongly developes itself. It is then that sacrifices are most 
cheerfully made, and danger and toil most readily met, and 
life most freely given, for the state whose foundations can 
no other way be laid. As the state, thus founded in treasure 
and in blood, and vigilantly guarded in its infancy, gains ma* 
turit Y and strength, becomes rich, and great, and powerful, 
oomes into honorable relation with the surrounding states 
and nations, the love of country seems not to keep pace 
with its growth in the hearts of the people, but rather to 
diminish, as there is less frequent and less urgent occasion 
for its exercise. 

National Pride. — There is, however, a counteracting 
tendency to be found in the national pride which is awak- 
ened by the prosperity and power of a country, and especi- 
ally by its historic greatness. The citizen of England, or of 
Franco, at the present day, has more to defend, and more 
to love, than merely his own home and fireside, the soil that 
he cultivates, and the institutions that guarantee his freedom 
and his rights. The past is intrusted to him, as well as the 
present. The land whose honor and integrity he is deter- 
mined to maintain, at all hazard and personal sacrifice, is not 
the England, or the France, of to-day merely, but of the cen- 
turies. He remembers the glories of the empire, the armies, 
and the illustrious leaders that have carried his country's 
flag with honor into all lands, the monarchs that, in succes- 
sion, fi.'om Clovis and Charlemagne, from Alfred and Harold 
the dauntless, have sat in state upon the throne that claims 
his present allegiance, the generations that have contributed 
to make his country what it now is ; and he feels that net 
merely the present greatness and power of his country, but 
all its former greatness and glory, are intrusted to his pres- 
ent care ai;id keeping. 

Depends upon Association. — If we inquire more closely 
into the philosophy of the matter, we shall find, I think, 



BENEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 457 

tbat the principle of association is largely concerned as the 
immediately producing cause of the emotion now under con- 
sideration. We connect with the idea of any country the 
history and fortunes, the virtues and vices of its inhabitants, 
of those who, at any time, recent or remote, have passed their 
brief day, and acted their brief part, within its borders, and 
whose unknown dust mingles with its soil. They have Ipng 
eince passed away, but the same hills stand, the same rivers 
flow along the same channels, the same ocean washes the 
ancient shores, the same skies look down upon those fields 
and waters, and with these aspects and objects of nature we 
associate all that is great and heroic in the historv of the 
people that once dwelt among those hills, and along those 
shores. Every lofty mountain, every majestic river, every 
craggy cliff and frowning headland along the coast, stand 
as representative objects, sacred to the memory of the past, 
and the great deeds that have been there performed. 
How much this must add to the force and power of the 
patriotic emotion is obvious at a glance. 

fSame Principle concerned in the Love of 'Some, — In 
like manner, by the same principle of association, we connect 
our own personal history with the places where we dwell, 
and the country we inhabit. They become, in a measure, 
identified with ourselves. To love the home of our child- 
hood, and our native land, is but to love our former selves, 
eince it is here that our little history lies, and whatever we 
have wrought of good or ill. 

An original Principle. — With respect to the character 
of this emotion, while it is doubtless awakened and strength 
ened by the law of association, still I cannot but regard it 
as an original provision and principle of our nature, spring- 
mg rip instinctively in the bosom, showing itself essen- 
tially the same under all conditions of society, and in all 
ages and countries. It waits not for education to call it 
forth, not for reason and reflection to give it birth ; while 

20 



463 MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

at the same time, reason and reflection doubtless contribute 
largely to its development and strength. 

Strongest where it might he least expected. — It has been 
frequently observed, by those who have made human nature 
their study, that the patriotic feeling is not confined to the 
inhabitants of the most favored climes and countries, but, on 
the contrary, is often most strongly developed in nations 
les8 populous, and in countries little favored by nature. The 
inhabitants of wild, mountainous regions, of sterile shores, 
of barren plains, manifest as strong a love of home and 
country, as any people on the globe. It is thus with the 
Swiss among their mountain fastnesses, and with the poor 
Esquimaux of northern Greenland, where, beyond the arctic 
circle, cold and darkness reign undisturbed the greater part 
of the year. Even in those dreary realms, and in those 
bosoms little refined, the voice of nature is heard, and the 
love of home and of country is strong. Even beggars have 
been known to die of nostalgia, or home-sickness. 



CHAPTER 11. 

MALEYOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

A.$ distinguished from the benevolent, — The affections 
have already been distinguished from other forms of the 
gensibility, by the circumstance that they involve, along 
Mith the feeling of pleasure or pain, some feeling of kindness 
or the opposite, toward the object ; in the one case we term 
them benevolent, in the other, malevolent affections. Of 
the former, I have treated in the preceding chapter ; of the 
latter, I am now to speak. 

Resentment the generic Name, — These affections may be 
comprised under the general name resentment^ as that which 
im<levlies and constitutes the basis of them all. Envy, jeal 



MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 459 

ousy, revenge, etc., may be regarded as but so many modi- 
fications, or perversions, of this general principle. As tbe 
benevolent affections are all so many forms of love, going 
forth toward diverse objects, and varying as the objects 
vary, so the malevolent affections are so many forms of the 
opposite principle, i, €., aversion, varying, likewise, with the 
objects. 

Founded in Nature, — As the benevolent, so likewise thu 
malevolent or irascible feelings are, as to their principle^ 
instinctive ; they have their foundation in our nature. They 
are, as such, universally exhibited under the appropriate 
circumstances ; they are early in their development, showing 
themselves often prior to the exercise of the reflecting and 
reasoning powers ; they are, also, to some extent, common to 
aian with the brutes. 

Capable^ however^ of rational JExercise and Control, — 
While we pronounce them instinctive, however, we would 
by no means imply that they are not capable of being de- 
liberately and intelligently exercised, or that they are not 
in fact, frequently so exercised. What instinct originally 
teaches, reason and reflection, when, at a later date, they 
come into play, may sanction and confirm. On the other 
hand, they may repress and forbid what instinct prompts. 
In the former case, the emotion, affection, passion, is none 
the less an instinctive principle in its nature and origin, al- 
though it has now passed from the domain of mere instinct 
to the higher sphere of reason and intelligence. What was 
done in the first instance from sudden impulse, blindly, with- 
out thought, is now done deliberately and intelligently. 
This may be the case with all our instinctive principles of action, 
as well as with those now particularly under consideration. 
Instinct and reason, or intelligence, though distinguished 
from, are not necessarily opposed to each other, in the sense 
that one and the same mental act may not proceed, now 
from one, now from the other, of these principles. The love 
which I cherish for my friends, or my kindred, may bo 



460 MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

purely instinctive, it may be strictly rational, a matter oi 
reflection, the result of deliberate purpose. 

Existence of such a Principle denied by some — The ex 
istence of such a principle as resentment, among the original 
and constitutional elements of our nature, has been called in 
question by some writers. It has been thought derogatory 
to the divine character, that the Creator should implant the 
principle of resentment in the human heart. He commands 
us to love, and not to hate, and what he expressly forbids, 
he cannot have made provision for in the very constitution 
of the mind. Such a principle, it is also maintained, is alto- 
gether unnecessary. This is the ground taken by Mr 
Winslow, in his work on moral philosophy. 

The Question at Issue. — There is certainly much force in 
the view thus presented. The question before us, however, 
is not, what we might, a prior^- have supposed the nature of 
man to be, nor, what it ought to be, but simply, what is that 
nature as a matter of fact ? Whether such a principle as 
resentment is necessary in a well-constituted mind, is not 
now the question ; nor yet whether the Creator could con- 
sistently implant such a principle within us; nor, again, 
what may be the moral character of such a principle ; but 
simply. Is there such a principle among the native elements 
of human character? If it be found there, we may conclude, 
either, that the Creator has placed it there for some wise pur- 
pose, or else, that the nature with which man comes into the 
world is no longer an adequate expression of the wiU of the 
Creator concerning him, but has, in some way, lost its original 
purity and integrity. 

Existence of such a Principle. — Now that there are cer- 
tain irascible feelings which find a place, under certain cir- 
cumstances, in the human bosom, whenever the fitting occa- 
tflon calls them forth, can hardly be denied ; nor yet that 
they have their foundation in the nature of man. We have 
the same evidence of this, that we have of the existence of 
any other original and native principle. It manifests itseh 



MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 461 

aniversally, uniformly, under all the varieties of social con* 
dition, among all nations, in all ages of the world. It de- 
velopes itself at an early period of life, before education or 
example can have come in to account for its existence. 
Reason may subsequently control and restrain it, or it may 
fail to do so ; but the principle exists before it can be either 
mdulged or restrained. When the occasion which calls it 
forth is some injury or evil inflicted upon ourselves, the feel- 
ing takes the name of resentment , when others are the ob- 
jects of that injustice, the feeling awakened is more properly 
termed indignation. We resent our own wrongs, we are 
indignant at those of others. The principle is, in either case, 
the same, and is as truly a part of our nature, as gratitude 
for favors received, or sympathy with the sorrows of the 
afflicted. 

Term Malevolent^ how employed. — The term malevolent^ 
as used to designate this class of affections, is, it must be con- 
fessed, Uable to serious objection. It has come into use as a 
convenient term, in place of, and for the want of, something 
better, to mark the distinction between the feelings now 
under consideration, and those of the opposite character, 
already considered ; and as we call those benevolent^ so we 
call these malevolent^ merely by way of contrast, and not aa 
implying any thing criminal in the character of the emotions 
themselves. The term, however, is unfortunate, as seeming 
to involve a meaning not intended. The moral character of 
the affections thus designated, is an open question, to be de- 
cided upon its own merits, and not to be considered as settled, 
one way or the other, by the use of the term now under 
consideration. This question we shall presently discuss. 
For the present, we have to consider, more particularly, the 
several forms in which the malevolent or irascible feeling 
presents itself. 

Nature of Hesentment, - — jResentment is the feeling awak 
ened in view of injury received. It is precisely the opposite 
of gratitude, which is the feeling awakened by benefits con 



462 MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

ferred. As, in the latter case, there springs up at once it 
the heart an affectionate regard for the generous donor, so^ 
in the former there is awakened, at once a feeling of resent* 
ment against those who have done us the wrong. It is an 
instinctive emotion. No sooner are we conscious of the in- 
jury than we are conscious also of the feeling of resentment. 

Design of this Principle, — The design of this principle 
of our nature is evident. It arms us against those sudden 
dangers and assaults, which no foresight can anticipate, nor 
prudence prevent, and which, when they occur, require in- 
stant action, and prompt redress. In such cases, reason and 
reflection would come to our aid too late ; were we left to 
their counsels, however wise those counsels might be, we 
should already have suffered the injury from which they 
would seek to protect us. Something is needed that shall 
prompt to speedier action ; some watchman vigilant and 
armed, ready on the first approach of danger to strike his 
alarm-bell, and summon the garrison to action. This we 1 
have in the principle of resentment. Were it not for thw 
principle, moreover, a cautious and timid policy might often 
prevail over the sense of justice, and honor, and right, or a 
selfish policy might keep us back from interfering, at our 
own peril, for the protection of the injured, and the punish- 
ment of the aggressor. Instinct sets us right in such mat» 
ters, before reason has time to act. 

Necessary to the Punishment of Crime. — The malevo- 
lent feeling, at least in the form now under consideration, 
seems to be, in some degree, necessary for the punishment 
of crime, and the protection of society. It may be doubted 
whether, without it, we should act with sufficient energy, 
and promptness, for the redress of wrong, when that wrong 
is not inflicted upon ourselves. Nature has guarded against 
this danger, by planting in the human bosom an innate sense 
of justice, a hatred of wrong and injury wantonly inflicted, 
and a quick resentment against the perpetrator, which leads 
UB to seek 1 is detection and punishment, silences the plead 



MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 463 

jngs of compassion in his behalf, and arms us to inflict the 
merited blew. That is but a weak and short-sighted benev 
olence, that is incapable of hatred of crime, and criminals ; 
and that, under the flimsy pretence of compassion for the 
unfortunate, and humanity, would shield from justice, and 
due punishment, those who strike at the highest interests of 
society, and put in jeopardy all that is most dear and sacred 
to man. There are cases, in which compassion becomes 
malice aforethought, and stern resentment is the only true 
benevolence. It is one of the sublimest and most glorious 
attributes of deity, as portrayed in the Scriptures, that with 
the highest benevolence he combines the stern, inflexible 
hatred of wrong, so that, while it can with truth be said, 
" God is love," it can with equal truth be affirmed, " our 
God is a consuming fire." 

Liable to abuse, — While, however, the principle now 
considered has its uses, and must be regarded as a most im 
portant provision of nature for the necessities of our race, it 
must also be conceded that it is a principle liable to abuse, 
and requiring to be kept in careful ch^eck. Especially in its 
sudden and instinctive action, upon the reception of personal 
harm or danger, are we liable to be carried to extremes, and 
indulge a resentment out of proportion to the merits of the 
case. 

A Check on excessive JResentment, — Against this excess 
sive resentment of injuries, real or imaginary, nature has 
provided a check needful and salutary, in the indignatioD 
with which any such manifestation is sure to be regarded 
by others, and the loss of that sympathy, otherwise on our 
side, but now turned in favor of the object of our too great 
resentment. The wise and prudent man will carefully avoid 
such a result, and this prudence will act as a powerful curb 
on his anger. To the man of virtuous and honorable senti 
ments there is also another restraint, hardl^^ less powerful, 
upon the exercise of the malevolent feeling in any undue 
degree, and that is, the feeling of self-degradation and 



464 MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 

hamiliation which such a man must feel, in consequence of 
nis excessive resentment, when the heat of passion cools^ 
and the moments of calmer reflection ensue. Even as exer- 
cised within due bounds, the malevolent affection is, from 
Its very nature, a painful one. Not only the first emotion 
on the reception of injury or insult is one of a disagreeable 
nature, but the wish or desire, which instantly follows and 
accompanies it, of inflictmg in return some ill upon the ag- 
gressor, is also a feeling which disturbs and disquiets the 
mind, and inflicts a species of suffering upon the mind that 
cherishes it, that may not improperly be termed its own 
punishment. And this again may be regarded, and doubt- 
less is, to some extent, a check upon the indulgence of the 
malevolent affection. 

Violent Exhibitions of this Feeling^ where found. — - It ia 
accordingly in natures uncultivated and rude, little accus- 
tomed to self control, and the restraints of reason and relig- 
ion, that we naturally look for the violent and excessive out- 
bursts of passion. A regard for our own happiness, a due 
sense of our own dignity and moral worth, and a decent 
respect for the opinions of those about us, whose approba- 
tion and sympathy we desire, contribute, if not to diminish 
the strength, at least to repress the manifestation, in any 
considerable degree, of the feeling of resentment, in those 
who have arrived at years of discretion, and have profited 
by the lessons of experience. The child is angry with the 
stone against which he strikes his foot, and vents his resent- 
ment for any injury upon the unconscious instrument, which 
was the means of its infliction. The savage tears from hia 
flesh the arrow that has wounded him, and breaks it into 
fragments. This is undoubtedly the instinct of nature, un- 
taught by reason and reflection. It is probably the first im 
pulse of every man, on the reception of any injury, and before 
he has time to reflect on the folly of such a course, to ex- 
press in some manner his resentment against the immediate 
iaatrument li his suffering. 



MALEYOLENT AFFECTIONS. 465 

Deliberate Form of Resentment, — When the first im 
pulse has passed, and time gives opportunity for reflection, 
this instinctive resentment dies away, or gives place to a 
deliberate and rational form of the same emotion. Thut 
affected, the mind casts about it to ascertain the real extent 
of its injury, and the best means of redress ; it distinguishe» 
between the conscious agent, and the unconscious instrument 
of its wrong, between the intentional injury and the unin 
tentional, and, it may be, accidental harm ; it takes into vie\^ 
the circumstances of the case, and the probable motives of 
the doer, and graduates its resentment accordingly. 

Illustration of deliberate Resentment, — The law of re 
taliation which prevails among savage tribes, and which de- 
mands blood for blood, life for life, and exacts the fearfiil 
penalty with a justice inexorable and sure, though often 
long delayed, and which never loses sight of its victim, 
though years, and broad lands, and wide waters intervene, 
affords an illustration of deUberate in distinction from in- 
stinctive resentment. The law of honor, so called, as it exists 
among civilized nations, also illustrates the same principle. 

Pointed out by Butler and others. — The distinction 
which we have indicated between the instinctive and delib- 
erate form of this emotion, was clearly pointed out by 
Butler, though by no means original with him, as some 
writers have supposed ; it is quite too obvious and import- 
ant a distinction to have escaped the notice of earlier, and 
even of ancient philosophers, nor is it at all peculiar to this 
one affection, but common to all the sensibilitieSj as I have 
already said. 

Modifications of the general Principle, — There are cer- 
tain modifications of the malevolent affection, which require 
a passing notice in this connection. I refer to those emo- 
tions commonly known as envy^ jealousy^ and revenge. 
These are all but different forms of the same general prin- 
ciple, varying as the different circumstances and objects vary 
which call them forth. 

20* 



406 MALEV01.ENT AlFECTIONS. 

Nature of Envy, — Envy is that form of resentment which 
too often, and too easily, finds a place in the human bosom, 
when another is more fortunate, more successful, more hon- 
ored and esteemed, than ourselves. Especially is this the 
case, when the fortunate one is from our own circle of com- 
panionship, and our own rank in life, and when the honors 
and distinctions, or the wealth and power, that fell to his lot 
are such as we might ourselves have aspired to reach. We 
never, I suspect, envy those whose condition is, and origin- 
ally was, very far removed from our own. The peasant 
envies not the lord of the realm, nor the beggar the king, 
but rather his fellow-peasant, or fellow-beggar, whose hut is 
warmer, and whose ragged garment not so ragged, as his 
own. It is the passion of a weak and narrow mind, a mean 
and degrading emotion, the opposite of every thing noble 
and generous. 

Nature of Jealousy, — Jealousy is that form of the ma- 
levolent affection which has relation more particularly, 
though not exclusively, to the attachment which exists 
between the sexes, and which is awakened by the supposed 
rivalry of another. It is one of the most painful of the ma- 
levolent affectrons, and, when thoroughly roused, one of the 
strongest and most powerful principles of our nature. It is 
the peculiarity of this passion, that the object of its suspicion, 
and resentment, is, at the same time, the object of the heart's 
deepest love, and, it may be, adoration ; the strength and bit- 
terness of the passion being in proportion to the fervor and 
earnestness of that affection. In the character of Othello, we 
have a fine delineation of the working and development of 
this trait of human character, as in Cassius we have a por- 
traiture of the corresponding affection of envy. 

Nature of Revenge, — Revenge is resentment in its most 
dehberate form, planned and carried into execution, not for 
the prevention of crime or injury, nor yet with reference 
to the ends of justice, but for the simple gratification of 
personal hatred. As such, and springmg from such a motive, 



^ 



MALEVOLENT AFFECTIONS. 467 

it is usually excessive in degree, and malicious in character. 
It is a dark and deadly passion, not more dangerous to so- 
ciety than degrading to the bosom that harbors it. It has 
not one redeeming quality to recommend it. It is neither 
the mark of a noble and generous, nor yet of a manly and 
brave spirit. It is the offspring of fear, rather than of cour- 
age. It usually seeks to accomplish, by secret and unlawfiJ 
means, what it is ashamed or afraid to do openly, and by 
fair and honorable measures. It is a passion closely allied to 
those which may be supposed to reign in the bosom of a 
fiend. 

Qualifying RemarJc. — I have spoken of envy, jealousy 
and revenge, as modifications or different forms of the gene- 
ral principle of resentment, or the irascible propensity. There 
is, however, one important respect in which they all differ 
from the parent principle from which they spring. The lat- 
ter, resentment, while founded in our nature, may, in exer- 
cise, be either instinctive or deliberate, as already shown ; 
the former imply, I suspect, always some degree of delibera- 
tion, some element of choice. They are natural, in so far as 
there is a tendency in our nature to the exercise of these 
feelings under given circumstances, and, inasmuch as the 
principle from which they spring is founded in our nature, as 
one of its original elements; but they are not, like that prin- 
ciple, sometimes instinctive in their operation, but always, on 
the contrary, involve, as it seems to me, some process of 
thought, reflection, deliberation, choice. 

Moral Character of the malevolent Affections. — It haa 
been a question, much discussed, whether the class of feel- 
mgs under consideration, in the present chapter, has any 
moral character^ and if so, what ? The question pertains, 
perhaps, more properly, to moral than to mental science 
but we cannot pass it entirely without notice in this connec- 
tion. So far as regards those forms of the malevolent emo- 
tion last considered, envy, jealousy, and revenge, there can 
be little doubt. Their exercise involves, as already stated* 



458 MALE^ OLENT AFFEC riOi^S. 

something of reflection and choice. They are not instinctive, 
but voluntary in their operation, capable, therefore, of con- 
trol, and if not subjected to the stern dominion of reason, if 
not checked and subdued by the higher principles that 
should e/er govern our conduct, we are reprehensible. 
Their indulgence in any form, and to any degree, must be 
regarded as blamevrorthy. They are perversions of that 
principle of resentment, which, for wise reasons, nature has 
implanted in our bosoms. Their tendency is evil, and only 
evil. They are malevolent in the full and proper sense of 
that term. 

Of simple liesentment. — As to the primary principle of 
resentment in its simple and proper form, in so far as ita 
operation is deliberate and voluntary, rather than purely in- 
stinctive, implying the exercise of reflection and reason, it 
must possess, in common with all other mental acts of that 
nature, some moral character. Within due limits, and on 
just occasions, it is a virtue ; when it passes those Umits, 
when it becomes excessive, or is uncalled for, by the circum- 
stances of the case, it becomes a vice. 

Of Hesentm^ent as instinctive. — The question before us 
pAuperly relates to that form of resentment which is purely 
instinctive, unaccompanied by the exercise of reason and the 
reflective p'owers. Has such an emotion, strictly speaking 
any moral character ? How far are we responsible for its 
exercise ? It seems to be a principle of manifest justice, and 
accordant with the common sense of mankind, that a man 
should be held responsible only for his rational and volun- 
tary acts, for such things as it Hes in his power to do, or not 
to do, according as he chooses. But that which is purely 
instinctive, is certainly not of this character. It may be in 
» my power to repress the feehng of resentment that arises in 
my bosom on the reception of manifest injustice and wrong; 
I may refuse to harbor such a feeling ; I may struggle to 
rise above it ; but the feeling itself is instinctive, and I can 
no more prevent its first awakening and impulse, than I can 



MALEVOLENT AFFEOTIO J^ S. 469 

prevent the involuntary contraction of the muscles upon 
the incision of the surgeon's knife. 

Views of others — Tlphain^ JReid^ Chalmers, — Such is 
the view now generally entertained, we believe, by psychol- 
ogists. "Instinctive resentment," says Mr. Upham, "has 
no moral character." " A moral character attaches only to 
the voluntary form of resentment." The same may be said 
of other affections, and of the sensibilities generally. In so 
far as they are purely instinctive, they have no moral char- 
acter. 

Dr. Reid, in his Active Powers of the Human Mind, hoida 
this language, " Nothing in which the will is not concerned 
can justly be accounted either virtuous or immoral." The 
practice of all criminal courts, and all enlightened nations, 
he adds, is founded upon this principle ; insomuch, " that if 
any judicature in any nation should find a man guilty, and 
the object of punishment, for what they allow to be alto- 
gether involuntary, all the world would condemn them as 
men who knew nothing of the first and most fundamental 
rules of justice." 

Dr. Chalmers claims for the principle now under consider- 
ation a place among the primary and universal moral judg- 
ments of mankind. " It is in attending to these popular, or 
rather universal decisions, that we learn the real principles 
of moral science. And the first, certainly, of these popular, 
or rather universal decisions is, that nothing is moral or 
immoral that is not voluntary. 

"That an action, then, be the rightful object either of 
moral censure or approval, it must have had the consent of 
the will to go along with it. It must be the fruit of a voli- 
tion, else it is utterly beyond the scope, either of praise for 
its virtuousness, or of blame for its criminality. If an action 
be involuntary, it is as unfit a subject for any moral reckon- 
ing, as are the pulsations of the wrist." 

(Sketches of Moral and Mental Philosophy, Chapter V 
On the Morality of the Emotions!) 



SENSIBILITIES 



PART THIRD. 



THE DESIRES. 



DESIRES. 

CHAPTER I. 

NA.TUaB AND CLASSIFICATION OF DESIRES. 

General Character of Desire, — What we enjoy we love, 
and what we enjoy and love, becomes, when no longer pres. 
ent, or when, although yet present, its future absence is re- 
garded as probable, an object of desire. In the latter case 
it is perhaps more properly the continuance of the loved ob- 
ject, rather than the object itself, that is desired. Strictly 
speaking, we desire only that which is not in possession, and 
which is regarded as good and agreeable. More frequently 
the objects of desire are those things which, in some meas- 
ure, we have actually enjoyed, and learned by experience 
how to prize. In many cases, however, we learn in other 
ways than by our own experience the value of an object ; 
we gather it from observatio.n, from the testimony of others, 
partly, perhaps, from imagination ; and in such cases what 
is known or supposed to be agreeable and a good thing, 
though never, perhaps, actually enjoyed by ourselves, may 
be an object of desire. Thus I may desire wealtl^or power, 
long before they come into my possession to be enjoyed. 
The felicities which await the righteous in the future maj 
be distinct and definite objects of desire, while yet we are 
pilgrims on the earth, and have not seen " the land that is 
very far off." Even in the cases supposed, however, we 
have enjoyed, to some extent, if not the very same, yet 
simHar objects ; we have experienced something, though it 



4V4 NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION 

may be on a small scale, of the advantages wliicli wealth 
and power confer, while in our enjoyment of earthly happi- 
ness there is doubtless something on which the imagination 
can build its more glorious anticipations of the future, and 
It is this enjoyment and realization of a present or a past 
good, that constitutes the foundation of our desires. If we 
had never enjoyed aught, it may be doubted whether we 
should ever desire aught. 

Law of the Sensibility, — The great law of the sensibility, 
then, may be thus stated, as regards the order and relation 
of the several classes of emotion to each other : I enjoy ^ I 
love^ I desire / and the reverse, I suffer^ I dislike^ I cherish 
aversion. That such is the order or law of mental opera- 
tion has been ably shown by Dam iron in his Cours de Philo- 
sophic, and also, before him, by Jouffroy. 

Conditions of Desire, — Desire is a feeling simple and in- 
definable. We can merely specify the conditions which it 
observes, and the occasions on which it is awakened. These 
conditions or occasions are the two already mentioned ; the 
previous enjoyment, in some degree, of an agreeable object, 
and the present or contemplated absence of that object. 
Where these conditions are fulfilled, desire springs up at 
once in the mind, a desire proportioned to the degree of 
that previous enjoyment, and the strength of the affection 
thereby awakened in our minds for the object of our 
regard. 

Opposite of Desire^ Aversion, — The opposite of desire is 
aversion, the feeling that arises in view of an object not as 
agreeable ^\% as disagreeable, not as a good but as an ill. 
This, too, Hke desire, is based upon some measure of ex- 
perience ; we have suffered somewhat of real or imagined ill, 
which, while it continues, is an object of dislike or hatred, 
and regarded as something which, though now absent, may 
possiMy be realized in the future, becomes an object of 
aversion. Aversion, as well as its opposite, desire, finds its 
object in the future, while its basis lies in the past. 



OF DESIRES 475 

It will not he necessary to treat particularly of oar aver- 
Bions as a distinct class of emotions, since they are, for 
the most part, simply the counterparts of our desires, the 
desire of life, or happiness, having its equivalent in the aver- 
sion which we feel to suffering, and to death ; so of othei 
desires. 

Desire always preceded hy Emotion, — With regard to 
the nature of desires, it may further be remarked that while 
they imply always an object, an agreeable object, and that 
an absent one ; while they imply, also, some previous enjoy- 
ment of that now absent object, or, at least, some knowledge 
of its existence and adaptation to our wants, as the founda- 
tion on which they rest, they do not take their rise imme- 
diately from the simple perception or intellectual contempla- 
tion of that absent object, as presented again merely to 
thought or imagination, but always some emotion or affec- 
tion is first awakened by such thought or perception, and 
the desire succeeds to, and springs out of, that emotion. The 
mere perception of the object which formerly pleased me, 
does not, of itself, awaken in me immediately a desire for 
the object, but first an emotion or affection, and from that 
arises the desire. 

Permanence of the Desires, — The greater permanence 
which our desires seem to possess, as compared with other 
simple emotions and affections, and which has been some- 
times regarded as a distinguishing characteristic of this clas? 
of feelings, is owing, probably, not so much to the nature of 
desire, in itself considered, as to the fact that the object de- 
sired is always an absent object, and so long as it so remains, 
the desire for it is likely to continue. Were our desires 
always gratified as soon as they are definitely known, they 
A^ould be no more permanent than any other state of mind. 

Desire a motive Power. — The desires, it is to be noticed, 
moreover, are, in their nature, motive powers, springs of 
action to the mind. They are, if not the only, at least the 
chief source of mental activity. They prompt and excite 



476 NATURE AND CLASSIFI G ATI ^N, ETC. 

the mmd to action. The faculties, both physical and mental, 
are, in a manner, subject to their control. The intellect it- 
self leads not to action ; nor do the emotions ; they agitate 
the mind, but it is only as they awaken desire, and that 
desire fixes upon a definite object, possible, but not in pos- 
session, that mind and body are both aroused to go forth for 
the attainment of the absent object of desire. 

Classification of Desires. — Our desires may be classec* 
according to their objects. These are of two sorts or classes : 
those which pertain to the physical nature and constitution, 
and those which relate to the wants of the mind rather than 
of the body. The desires, accordingly, may be classed as 
twofold — the animal^ and the rational ^ the former having 
their source in the physical constitution of man, the latter in 
the nature and wants of the mind, rather than of the body. 
Of the former class are the desire of food, of sex, of exertion, 
of repose, of whatever, in a word, is adapted to the anima* 
nature and wants. Of the latter class, the more prominent 
are the desire of happiness, of knowledge, of power, of so- 
ciety, of the esteem of others. 

In connection with our desires are to be considered also 
those emotions which are known under the name of hope 
and fear, and which, as was stated in our previous analysis 
of the sensibilities, are to be regarded rather as modifications 
of desire, than as distinct principles or modes of mental 
activity. 



CHAPTER II. 

DESIRES ARISING FROM THE PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION. 

Kature of Appetite as compared with other Forms oj 
Desire. — These are usually called appetites^ in distinction 
from those desires which are founded in the nature of the 
mind. They are, however, properly, a class of desires 
though not always so ranked by philosophical writers. They 
are feelings which arise always in view of some good, real, 
or supposed, which has its adaptation to the wants of our 
nature, but which is not in present possession. This absence 
creates a longing for the object, which longing, so far as it 
relates to the mind at all, and not merely to the muscular 
sensation — as of hunger, etc. - — is purely a desire. It differs 
from the other desires, in the respect mentioned, that it takes 
its rise from the constitution and wants of the body, rather 
than of the mind. It is not, however, on this account, the 
less a mental state, a psychological phenomenon. 

Ambiguity of the Term. — The term appetite is ambigu- 
ous ; sometimes denoting the uneasy physical sensations, as 
hunger, thirst, etc., which are conditions of the muscular 
and nervous systems, and not states of the mind ; sometimes 
the mental condition which results from this, and which is 
properly called desire. It is only with the latter that psy- 
chology has to do ; the former fall within the province of 
physiology. 

Enumeration of the more important.^ and the End accom^ 
plished by each. — The desires, of the class to which we 
now refer, are various, comprehending all those which im- 
mediately relate to, and arise from, the various bodily wants. 
The more important are the desire of food, and of sex, to 
which may be added the desire of action, and of repose 



478 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

The constitution of our physical system is such as to lay the 
foundation of these desires. They pertam to our animal 
nature, and, as such, have a most important part to perform 
in the economy of life. They all relate, directly or indi. 
rectly, to the continuance of life, whether that of the indt 
vidual, or of the species. Each of the appetites, or animal 
desires, as we prefer to call them, has its own specific object 
to accomplish, with reference to this general end. The de- 
sire of food looks to the preservation of individual life ai: ; 
vigor, by repairing the waste which the physical system is 
continually undergoing. The desire of muscular exertion 
and repose has the same general design. The desire of sex 
has for its object the preservation of the species. 

Importance of these Principles, — Not only has each of 
these desires a specific end to accomplish, but it is an end 
which, so far as we can see, would not otherwise be accom- 
plished. Reason might suggest the expediency of taking 
food to sustain the system, or of resting at intervals from 
exertion, in order to recruit our exhausted energies ; but 
were it not for the desires that nature has implanted in us 
demanding positive gratification, and reminding us when we 
transgress those laws which govern our physical being, how 
often, in the pressure of business, should we neglect the duo 
care of the body, and deprive ourselves of needed food, or 
needed rest, or needed muscular exertion. Were it not for 
the demands of appetite, how imperfectly should we judge 
^eilhar as to the proper proportion, or the proper quantity, 
and quality, of that refreshment which the body needs, and 
which food, and rest, and muscular exercise supply. And 
the same may be said of the other animal desires. Th )y 
are necessary to the economy of life, by supplying a motJ /e 
which would not otherwise exist, and thus securing a ref ilt 
not otherwise obtained. The principles to which we re jr, 
are not, therefore, to be regarded as of little imports ce 
because relating to the wants of ine body, and commom to 
man with the annual races, generally ; or the oontr^rv, 



THE PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION 479 

{hey are of the highest importance and value ; a due re^c^ard 
to them is essential to the highest well-being, and the neglect 
or abuse of them brings its own sure and speedy punishment. 
To be ashamed of our animal nature, is to be ashamed of 
ourselves, and of the constitution that God gave us; to 
think lightly of it, is to despise the divine wisdom and be- 
nevolence. It is no part of an intelligent and rational nature 
to contemn the casket that contains all its treasure. Even 
were that casket ^ orthless in itself, it would be valuable for 
the office it performs ; much more when it is itself a piece 
of rare workmanship, curiously and wonderfully wrought, 

Not selfish, — The appetites are not to be regarded as 
essentially selfish, in their nature. They relate, indeed, to 
our own personal wants ; so do all our desires, and, in some 
measure, all our sensibilities. But when exercised within 
due bounds, they are not inconsistent with the rights and 
happiness of others, but the rather promotive of these re- 
sults ; and, therefore, not in the proper sense of che term 
are they selfish propensities. Their ultimate aim is not the 
securing of a certain amount of enjoyment to the individual 
by their gratification, but the securing of a certain end, not 
otherwise reached, by means of that enjoyment. They are 
to be set down as original and implanted principles of our 
nature, rather than as selfish and acquired propensities. 

Dangerous Tendency, — I w^ould, by no means, however 
overlook the fact that the animal desires are of dangerous 
tendency when permitted to gain any considerable control 
over the mind, and that they require to be kept within care- 
ful bounds. They are liable to abuse. When sufi<ered t-o 
become predominant over other and higher principles of 
action, when, from subjection and restraint, they rise to tlie 
mastery, and govern the man, then sinks the man to tne 
level of the brute, and there is presented that saddest spec- 
tacle of all that the sun beholds in his course about the earth, 
a mind endowed with capacity of reason and intelligence, 
Dut enslaved to its own base passions. There Is no slavery 



480 THE PHYSICAL C ONSTIT U T t OK. 

BO degrading as that, none so hopeless, llie most earnest 
efforts, the best and most sincere purposes and resolutions 
are too often made in vain, and the mind, struggling, to little 
purpose, with its own propensities, and its own vitiated na- 
ture, is swept on by the fearful current of its ungoverned, 
aiid now ungovernable, appetites, as the ship over which 
ueither sail nor helm have any further power, is swept along 
in swift and ever lessening circles by the fatal maelstrom. 

Curious LaiD of our Nature. — It seems to be the law of 
our nature, that while our active principles gain strength by 
exercise, the degree of enjoyment or of suffering which they 
are capable of affording, diminishes by repetition. This has 
been clearly stated by Mr. Stewart. It follows from this, 
that while by long and undue indulgence of any of the animal 
desires, the gratification originally derived from such indulg- 
ence is no longer capable of being enjoyed, the desire itself 
may be greatly increased, and constantly increasing, in its 
demands. It is hardly possible to conceive a condition more 
wretched and miserable, than that of a mind compelled thus 
to drain the bitter dregs of its cup of pleasure, long since 
quaffed, and to repeat, in endless round, the follies that no 
longer have power to satisfy, even for the brief moment, the 
poor victim of their enchantment. The drunkard, the glut- 
ton, the debauchee, afford illustrations of this principle. 

Acquired Appetites, — Beside the natural appetites of 
which I have hitherto spoken, and which are founded in the 
constitution of the physical system, there are certain appe 
tites which must be regarded as artificial and acquired, such 
as the desire, so widely and almost universally prevalent, ii 
countries both savage and civilized, for narcotic and stimu 
lating drugs of various kinds, and for intoxicating drinks. 



CHAPTER Uh 

DESIRES ARISING FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THS MIND 

§ I. — Desire of Happiness. 

Propriety of the Designation Self-love, — Among that 
class of desires that have their foundation in the mental 
rather than in the physical constitution, one of the most im- 
portant is the desire of happiness^ or, as it is frequently 
called, self-love. The propriety of this designation has been 
called in question. " The expression," says Mr. Stewart, 
" is exceptionable, for it suggests an analogy (where there 
is none, in fact) between that regard which every rational 
being must necessarily have to his own happiness, and those 
benevolent affections which attach us to aur fellow-creatures. 
There is surely nothing in the former of these principles 
analogous to the affection of love ; and, therefore, to call it 
by the appellation of self-love^ is to suggest a theory with 
respect to its nature, and a theory which has no foundation 
in truth." 

This Position questionable, — I apprehend that in this 
remark, Mr. Stewart may have gone too far. The regard 
which we have for our own happiness certainly differs from 
that which we entertain for the happiness of others, as the 
objects differ on which, in either case, the regard is fixed. 
That the emotion is not essentially of the same nature^ how 
ever, psychologically considered, is not so clear. Love or 
affection, as it has been defined in the preceding chapters, is 
the enjoyment of an object, mingled with a wish or desire of 
good to the same. Love of friends is the pleasure felt in, 
and the benevolent regard for, them. Love of self, in like 

21 



482 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

manner, is the enjoyment oi, and the desire of, good to scl" 
Whoever, then, enjoys himself, and wishes his own good, 
exercises self-love; and the essential ingredient of this aifeo- 
tion is the desire for his own happiness. Xot only, then^ is 
there an analogy between the two principles, the desire of 
onr own happiness, and the regard which we feel for others, 
but something more than an analogy; they are essentially 
of the same nature so far as regards the mental activity ex- 
ercised in either case, and the term love as properly design 
nates the one, as the other, of these states of mind. I may 
lOve myself, as truly as I love my fiiend, nor is it the part of 
a rational nature to be destitute of the principle of self-lo\ e. 

Not to he confounded with Selfishness, — There is more 
force in the objection, also urged by Mr. Stewart, agamst 
the phrase self-love^ used to denote the desire of happiness, 
that it is, from its etymology, liable to be confounded, and in 
fact, often is confounded, with the word selfishness^ which 
denotes a very different state of mind. The word selfish 
ness is always used in an unfavorable sense, to denote some 
disregard of the happiness and rights of others; but no such 
idea properly attaches to self-love, or the desire of happiness, 
which, as Mr. Stewart justly remarks, is mseparable from 
our nature as rational and sensitive beings. 

Views of TJieologians, — Misled, perhaps, by the resem- 
blance of the words, many theological writers, both ancie. t 
and modern, have not only represented self-love as essentially 
sinful, but even as the root and origin of evil, the principle 
of original sin. 

So Barrow expressly affirms, citing Zuingle as authority, 
English morahsts have sometimes taken the same view^ and 
the earlier American divines very generally heid it. 

Self-love not criminal. — It can hardly be that a prin- 
ciple, which seems to belong to our nature as intelligent and 
rational beings, should be essentially criminal in it nature. 
The mistake, doubtless, arises from overlooking the distinc 
lion, already indicated, between self-love and selfishness 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND 483 

The love of self, carried to the extreme of disregarding the 
happiness of others, and trespassing upon the rights of others 
in the way to self-gratification, is indeed a violation of the 
principles of right, and is equally condemned by nature, 
speaking in the common sense and reason of man, and by 
Jivine revelation. But neither reason, nor the divine law, 
forbid that regard to our own happiness which self-love, m 
its true and proper sense, implies, and which exists, it may 
aafely be affirmed, in every human bosom in which the light 
of intelligence and reason has not gone out in utter dark- 
ness. The sacred Scriptures nowhere forbid this principle. 
They enjoin upon us, indeed, the love of our neighbor ; but 
the very command to love him as myself, so far from forbid- 
ding self-love, implies its existence as a matter of course, 
and presents that as a standard by which to measure the 
love I ought to bear to others. 

Opinion of Aristotle, — Much more correct than the 
opinions to which I have referred, is the view taken by 
Aristotle in his Ethics, who speaks of the good man as ne- 
cessarily a lover of himself, and, in the true sense^ pre'&ini 
nently so. " Should a man assume a preeminence in exercis- 
ing justice, temperance, and other virtues, though such a 
man has really more true self-lov^ than the multitude, yet 
nobody would impute his affection to him as a crime. Yet 
he takes to himself the fairest and greatest of all goods, and 
those the most acceptable to the ruling principle in his na- 
ture, which is, properly, himself, in the same manner as the 
sovereignty in every community is that which most properly 
constitutes the state. He is said, also, to have, or not tc 
Dave, the command of himself, just as this principle bears 
sway, or as it is subject to control; and those acts are con 
sidered as most voluntary which proceed from this legi«?la 
tive or sovereign power. Whoever cherishes and gratifies 
this ruling part of his nature, is strictly and peculiarly a 
lover of himself bat in quite a different sense fi'om that ic 
which self-love is regarded as a matter of reproach." (Etliic 



484 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

Nic, lib. ix., cap. viii.) This view appears to me eminently 
just. 

That man is not, in the true and proper sense, a self-lover 
who seeks his present at the expense of his future and per- 
manent well-being, or who tramples upon the rights and 
happiness of others, intent only upon his gratification. The 
glutton, the drunkard, the debauchee, are not the truest 
lovers of self. They stand fairly chargeable, not with too 
much, but too little regard for their own happiness and well- 
being. 

Not the only original Principle, — But while the desire 
of happiness is a principle which has its foundation in the 
constitution of the mind, and which is characteristic of rea- 
son and intelligence, it is by no means to be regarded as the 
only original principle of our nature. Certain moralists have 
sought to resolve all other active principles into self-love, 
making this the source and spring of all human conduct, so 
that, directly or indirectly, whatever we do finds its origin 
and motive in the love of self. According to this view, I 
love my friends, my kindred, my country, only because of 
the intimate connection between their well-being and my 
own ; I pity and relieve the unfortunate only to relieve my- 
self of the unpleasant feelings their condition awakens ; I 
sacrifice treasure, comfort, health, life itself, only for the 
sake of some greater good that is to be thus and only thus 
procured ; even the sense of right, and the obligations of a 
religious nature, which bind and control me, find their chief 
strength, as principles of action, in that regard for my own 
happiness which underlies all other considerations. 

Such a View indefensible, — This is a view not more de 
rogatory to human nature than inconsistent with all true 
psychology. That the principle under consideration is one 
of the most powerful springs of human conduct, that it en- 
ters more largely than we may ourselves, at the time, bn 
iware, into those motives and actions that wear the appear 
ance of entire disinterestedness, I am disposed to admit. 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 485 

nor would I deny that our sense of right, and of religious 
obligation, finds a strong support in that intimate and insepa- 
rable connection which exists between duty and happiness. 
The Scriptures constantly appeal to our love of happiness as 
a motive to right action. Their rewards and promises on 
the one hand, and their warnings and threatenings on the 
other, all rest on this assumed law of human nature, that 
man everywhere and always desires his own well-being. 
But that this is the only and ultimate ground of human aa 
lion, that all the benevolent affections, all honor, and virtue^ 
all sense of duty and right, all religious emotion and religious 
principle resolves itself into this, neither reason, nor revela- 
tion, nor the closest observation of the human mind, do 
either teach or imply. 

TViis Desire^ in what Sense rational. — Stewards View, — 
We have spoken, thus far, of the desire of happiness as a 
rational principle. Is it, in such a sense, peculiar to a rational 
and intelligent nature ? Does it so imply and involve the 
exercise of reason, that it is not to be found except in con- 
nection with, and as the result of, that principle ? If so, it 
can hardly be called an original and implanted, or, at least, 
an instinctive principle. And such is the view taken by Mr. 
Stewart, in his Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers 
The desire of happiness implies, in his estimation, a deliberate 
and intelligent survey of the various sources of enjoyment, 
a looking before and after, to ascertain what will, and what 
will not, contribute to ultimate and permanent well-being ; 
and this it is the part of reason to perform. 

Not exclusively so. — That the desire of happiness, as ex 
eixjised by a rational nature, involves something of this pro 
cess, some general idea of what constitutes happiness, of 
what ift good on the whole and not merely for the present, 
some perception of consequences, some comprehensive view 
and comparison of the various principles of action and 
courses of conduct, as means to this general end, may, in- 
deed, be admitted. And, so far as the exercise of self-love 



486 DES1RE8 ARISING FROM 

is of the nature now indicated, it is certainly a rational 
rather than an instinctive act. But I see no reason why one 
and the same emotion, or mental activity of any sort, may 
not be, at one time, the result of reflection, at another, of im- 
pulse ; now deliberate and rational, and now, instinctive in ita 
character. We know this to be the case, for example, with 
the aflections, both benevolent and malevolent. A principle 
of action may be none the less instinctive, and originally im- 
planted in man's nature, from the fact that, when he arrives 
at years of discretion, his reason confirms and strengthens 
what nature had already taught, or even adopts it as one of 
its own cardinal principles. It is not necessary, in order to 
all desire of good, that I should know, completely and com- 
prehensively, in what good consists, and I may still desire 
my own happiness, according to the measure of my knowl 
edge and capacity, when I simply know that I am happy at 
the present moment. 

Desire of continued Existence, — Closely analogous to 
the principle now under consideration, if not, indeed, prop- 
erly a form or modification of it, is the desire of continued 
existence. No desire that finds a place in the human bosom, 
perhaps, is stronger or more universal than this. Life is 
valued above all other possessions; riches, honors, place, 
power, ease, are counted as of little worth in comparison. 
There are, indeed, occasions when life is willingly sacrificed, 
rather than to incur dishonor and reproach, or for the de- 
fence of the innocent and helpless who depend on us for 
protection, or for some great and good cause that demands 
of the good and true man such service as may cost life. 
Even in such cases, the importance of the interests which 
demand and receive such a sacrifice, show the value we at- 
tach to that which is laid upon the altar. 

Increases with Age, — The desire of continued existence 
Beems to increase, as age advances, and life wears away. 
We always value that the more of which we have but little. 
It is a striking proof of the divine benevolence, that, in a 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 487 

world so full of care, and toil, and sorrow, as the present is, 
and must be, to the multitude of its inhabitants, there are 
few so miserable as not to regard continued existence as a 
boon to be purchased at any price. 

g II. — Desire op Knowledge. 

An original Priiicij^le, — Among the various principles 
that enter into the composition of our nature, and are the 
motive powers of the human mind, awakening and calling 
forth its energies, and impelling it to action, the desire of 
knowledge holds an important place. From its early mani- 
festation, before reason and reflection have as yet, to any ex- 
tent, come into play, and from its general, if not universal 
existence, we infer that it is one of those principles origin- 
ally implanted in our nature by the great Author of our 
being. 

l!sFot Curiosity, — The desire of knowledge, though often 
spoken of as synonymous with curiosity^ is not altogether 
identical with it. Curiosity has reference rather to the 
novelty and strangeness of that which comes before the 
mind. It is the feeling awakened by these qualities, rather 
than the general desire to know what is yet unknown. It 
is of more limited application, and while it implies a desire 
to understand the object in view of which it is awakened, 
implies also some degree of wonder, at the unusual and un- 
expected character of the object as thus presented. While, 
then, curiosity is certainly a most powerful auxiliary to the 
desire of learning, and stimulates the mind to exertions it 
might not otherwise put forth, it is hardly to be viewed as 
identical with the principle under consideration. 

Mc'^%ifested in early Life, — The desire of knowledge is 
never, perhaps, more strongly developed than in early life, 
and never partakes more fully of the character of curiosity 
than then. To the child, all things are new and strange 
He looks abo'^t him upon a world as unknown to him. as he 



438 DFSIRES ARISING FROM 

is to it, and every different object that meets his eye is a 
new study, and a new mystery to him. The desire to ac- 
quaint himself with the new and unknown world around 
him, keeps him constantly employed, constantly learning. 

In later Years, — As he grows up, and the sphere of his 
intellectual vision enlarges, every step of his progress only 
opens new and wider fields to be explored, beyond the limits 
of his previous investigations. If there is less of childish 
curiosity, there is more of earnest, manly, irrepressible de- 
sire and determination to know. His studies assume this or 
that direction, according to native taste and temperament, 
early associations, or the force of circumstances ; he becomes 
a student of science, or a student of letters, or of art, or of the 
practical professions and pursuits of life ; but turn in what 
direction and to what pursuits he will, the desire to know 
still lives within him, as a sacred lamp ever burning before 
the shrine of truth. 

Explains the Love of Narrative, — Every one has re- 
marked the eagerness with which children listen to stories, 
histories, and fables. This is owing not more to the love of 
the ideal, which is usually very strongly developed in early 
life, than to the desire of knowing what presents itself to 
the mind as something new and unknown, yet with the 
semblance of reality. Nor does this love of narrative for- 
sake us as we grow older. We have still our romances, our 
histories, our poems, epic and tragic, to divert us amid the 
graver cares of life ; and the old man is, perhaps, as impatient 
as the child, to go on with the story, and comprehend the plot, 
when once his interest and curiosity are awakened. 

A. benevolent Provision. — We cannot but reo:ard it as a 
benevolent provision of the Creator, so to constitute the 
human mind, that not only knowledge itself, but the very 
process of its acquisition, should be a pleasure. And when 
we consider how great is the importance to man of this desire 
of knowledge, and how great is the progress of even the hum- 
blest mind, from the dawn of its intelligence, on to the period 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 489 

cf its full maturity and strength ; how, under the influence 
ot this desire, the mind of a Newton, a Kepler, a Bacon, a 
Descartes, a Leibnitz, moves on, from the slow and feeble 
acquisitions of the nursery, to the great and sublime dis- 
cover! 2S that are to shed a light and glory, not only on the 
name of the discoverer, but on the path of all who come 
after him, we can hardly attach too high an importance to 
this part of our mental constitution. 

A rational^ though an instinctive Principle. — The de- 
sire of knowledge, like many of the active principles which 
have alreadj^ fallen under our notice, is capable of rational 
exercise and control, while, at the same time, an implanted and 
instinctive principle. It operates, at first, rather as a blind 
impulse, impelling the mind to a given end ; when reason 
assumes her sway of the mind and its restless energies, what 
was before a mere impulse and instinct of nature, now be- 
comes a deliberace and rational purpose. 

Moral Character. — As to moral character, it may, or 
may not, pertain to the exercise of the principle under con- 
sideration. The desire of knowledge is not of necessity a 
virtuous affection of the mind. Characteristic as it is of a 
noble and superior nature, more elevated and excellent, as 
it certainly is, than the merely animal desires and impulses, 
it is not inseparably connected with moral excellence. 

As rationally exercised it is laudable and virtuous, pro- 
vided we seek knowledge with proper motives, and for right 
ends ; otherwise, the reverse. Inasmuch, however, as we 
are under obligation .to act in this, as in all other matters, 
from pure motives, and for right ends, the mere absence of 
such a motive, the desire and pursuit of knowledge in an- 
other manner, and from other motives, becomes blame- 
worthy. 



^90 DESIRES ARISITSTG FROM 

§111. — Desire OF Power. 

A iiative Principle, — The desire of power must be re^ 
garded as an original principle of our nature. Like the 
desire of happiness, and of knowledge, it is both early in itf* 
development, and powerful in its influence over the mind. It 
is also universally manifest. 

In what Manner awakened, — Of the idea of power or 
cause, and of the manner in which the mind comes, in the 
first instance, to form that idea, I have already spoken, un- 
der the head of original conception. We see changes taking 
place in the external world. We observe these changes 
immediately and invariably preceded by certain antecedents. 
The idea of cause is thus suggested to the mind, and cause 
implies power of one thing over another to produce given 
efiects. We find, also, our own volitions attended with cor- 
responding effects upon objects external, and thus learn, still 
further, that we ourselves possess power over other objects. 
The idea thus awakened in the mind, there springs up, also, 
in connection with the idea, an activity of the sensibilities. 
The power which we find ourselves to have over objects 
about us affords us pleasure ; what we enjoy we love, and 
what we love we desire ; and so there is awakened in the 
mind a strong and growing desire for the possession of 
power. 

Pleasure of exerting Power, — The pleasure which we 
derive from producing, in any instance, a manifest effect, 
and from the consciousness that we have in ourselves the 
power to produce like effects whenever we will, is one of 
the highest sources of enjoyment of which nature has made 
us capable. It is, to a great extent, the spring and secret 
of the constant activity of which the world is full. It shows 
itself in the sports of childhood, and in the graver pursuits 
of maturer years. The infant, when it finds that it can move 
and control its own little limbs, the boy learning the art of 
such athletic sports as he perceives his fellows prarjtise, the 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 491 

man when he finds that he can control the action of his fel 
low-man, and bend the will of others to his own, are each, 
and perhaps equally, delighted at the acquisition of this new 
pc wer ; and the pleasure is generally in proportion to the 
novelty of the acquisition, and the apparent greatness of the 
effect produced. 

Strength and Influence of this Principle, — The love of 
power is one of the strongest of the ruling principles of the 
human mind. It has its seat in the deepest foundations of 
our nature. I can do something ; I can do what others do 
I can do more than they ; such is the natural order and 
progression of our endeavors, and such also the measure and 
inci'eise of our delight. What, but the love of power, leads 
to those competitions of strength with strength, which mark 
the athletic games and contests of all nations, civilized and 
savage ? What, but the love of power, impels the hunter over 
the pathless mountains, and deserts, in quest of those savage 
denizens and lords of nature, w^hose strength is so far su- 
perior to his own ? What, but the love of power, leads the 
warrior forth, at the head of conquering armies, to devastate 
and subdue new realms ? 

See7i also in other Pursuits, — And in the peaceful pursuits 
of Hfe, how largely does the same impulse mingle with the 
other, and perhaps more apparent, motives of human action ? 
The man of science, as he watches the nightly courses of the 
stars, or resolves the stubborn compounds of nature into 
their simple and subtle elements, as he discovers new laws, 
and unlocks the secrets that have long baffled human in- 
quiry, derives no small part of his gratification from the con- 
sciousness of that power which he thus exercises over the 
realm of matter subjected to his will. And when, in like 
manner, the orator, on w^hose words depend the lives of 
men, and the fate of nations, stands forth to accuse or defend, 
to arouse the slumbering passions, and inflame the patriotism, 
the courage, the resentment of his audience, or to soothe 
their anger, allay their prejudice, awaken theii' pity or their 



492 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

foars, how does the consciousness of hig powei ovei the 
swaying, agitated multitude before him, mingle with the 
emotions that swell his bosom, and augment the fierce de- 
light of victory? 

Auxiliary to desire of Knowledge, — The desire of power 
is accessory to, and in some cases, perhaps, the foundation of 
certain other principles of action. It is especially auxiliary 
to the desire of knowledge, inasmuch as every new acquisi 
tion of truth is an accession of power to the mind, and is, 
therefore, on that account, as well as for its own sake, de- 
sirable. As a general thing, the more we know, the more 
and the better we can do. Every mental acquisition becomes, 
in some sense, an instrument to aid us in further and larger 
acquisitions. We are enabled to call to our aid the very 
forces and elements of nature which our discoveries have, in 
a manner, subjected to our sway, and to conform our own 
conduct to those established laws which science reveals. 
The mind is thus stimulated, in all its investigations, and toil- 
some search for truth, b^ the assurance that every increase 
of knowledge is, in some sense, an increase, also, of power. 
Hence the aphorism so current, and generally attributed to 
Bacon, which affirms that knowledge is power. 

Auxiliary also to love of Liberty, — The love of liberty^ 
according to some writers, proceeds also, in part, at least, 
from the desire of power, the desire of being able to do 
whatever we like. Whatever deprives us of liberty trenches 
upon our power. In like manner, writers upon morals have 
noticed the fact that the pleasure of virtue is in a measure 
due to the same source. When evil habits predominate 
and acquire the mastery, we lose the power of self-control, 
the mind is subjected to the baser passions, and this loss of 
power is attended with tne painful consciousness of degra 
dation. C>n the other hand, to the mind that is bent on 
maintaining its integrity, though it be by stern and deter- 
imned conflict with the evil influences that surround it, and 
its OAVTi natural propensities to a course of sinful indulgence. 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 49^ 

^vory fresh struggle with those adverse influences becomea 
a pledge of final success, and the hour of victory, when it 
comes at last, as come it will, is an hour of triumph and of 

joy. 

§ IT. — Certain Modifications of the Desire of Power ; - ab, thh 
Desire of Superiority, and of Possession. 

General Statement. — There are certain desires to which 
the human mind is subject, and which seem to have a foun 
dation in nature, which, though frequently regarded as dis 
tinct principles of action, are more properly, perhaps, to be 
Aaewed as but modifications of the principle last considered. 
I refer to the desire of sup^iority^ and the desire of posses- 
sion * or, as they are more succinctly termed, ambition and 
avarice. 

TTie Desire to excels universal, — The desire to excel is al- 
most universal among men. It shows itself in every condi- 
tion of society, and under all varieties of character and pur- 
suit. It animates the sports of childhood, and gives a zest 
to the sober duties and realities of life. It penetrates the 
camp, the court, the halls of legislation, and of justice ; it 
enters alike into the peaceful rivalries of the school, the col 
lege, the learned professions, and into those more fearful 
contests for superiority which engage nations in hostile en- 
counter on the field of strife and carnage. What have we, 
under all these manifestations, but the desire of superiority, 
and what is that but the desire of power in one of its most 
common forms ? 

N'ot peculiar to Man, — This is a principle not peculiai 
to human nature, but common to man with the brute. The 
lower animals have also their rivalries, their jealousies, their 
contests for superiority in swiftness, and in strt^ngth, and he 
IS the acknowledged leader who proves himself superior in 
these respects to his fellows. 

Not the same with Envy, — The desire to excel, or the 
principle of emulation, is not to be confounded with envj 



494 DESIRES ARISING FRuM 

with which it is too frequently, but not necessarily, asso 
ciated. Envy is painei at the success of a rival ; a just and 
honorable emulation, without seeking to detract from tha 
well-merited honors of another, strives only to equal and 
surpass them. This distinction is an important one, and haa 
been very clearly pointed out by Mr, Stewart^ and also by 
JBp, Butler^ and, still earlier, by Aristotle. " Emulation,*' 
says Butler, " is merely the desire of superiority over others, 
with whom we compare ourselves. To desire the attain- 
ment of this superiority by the particular means of othere 
being brought down below our own level, is the distinct no 
tion of envy." To the same elTect, Aristotle, as quoted by 
Stewart : " Emulation is a good thing, and belongs to good 
men ; envy is bad, and belongs to bad men. What a man 
is emulous of he strives to attain, that he may really possess 
the desired object ; the envious are satisfied if nobody 
has it." 

ITot malevolent of Necessity, — Dr. Reid' has classed 
emulation with the malevolent affections, as involving a 
sentiment of ill-will toward the rival ; but, as Mr. Stewart 
very justly remarks, this sentiment is not a necessary con- 
comitant of the desire of superiority, though often found in 
connection with it ; nor ought emulation to be classed with 
the affections, but with the desires, for it is the desire which 
is the active principle, and the affection is only a concomit^ 
ant circumstance. 

'Vieiio maintained by Mr, Upham, — Mr. Upham denies 
emulation a place among the original and implanted prin- 
ciples of our nature, on this ground. All our active princi 
pies, he maintains, from instinct upward, are subordinate to 
tlie authority and decisions of conscience, as a faculty para- 
mount to every other. But the desire of superiority he 
supposes to be utterly inconsistent with the law of subordi- 
nation. Whenever man perceives a superior, he perceives 
one with whom, by this law of his nature, if such it be, he 
is brought into direct conflict and collision, and as he is sur- 



THE CONSTITU.IOK OF THE MIND. 495 

rounded by those who, in some respect, are his superiors, he 
is really placed in a state of perpetual warfare and misery ; 
nor can he regard even the Supreme Being with other feel- 
ings than those of unhallowed rivalry. A principle that 
would lead to such results, he concludes, cannot be founded 
In the constitution of our nature. He accordingly resolves 
the desire of superiority into the principle of imitativeness. 

The Correctness of this View called in Question. — It is 
difficult to perceive the force of this reasoning. The desire 
of superiority, it is sufficient to say, whatever be its origin, 
leads to no such results. As actually manifest in human 
character and conduct, it does not show itself to be incon- 
sistent with due subordination to authority, nor does it in- 
volve man in necessary and perpetual conflict with his fel- 
lows, nor does it present the Supreme Being as an object of 
unhallowed rivalry. We have only to do with facts, with 
the phenomena actually presented by human nature ; and 
we do not find the facts to correspond with the view now 
given. Nor can we perceive any reason, in the nature of the 
case, why the desire in question should lead, or be supposed 
to lead, to such results. The desire of superiority does not 
necessarily imply the desire to be superior to every body, 
and every thing, in the universe. It may have its natural 
and proper limits ; and such we find to be the fact. 

Actual Limitations of this Principle. — We desire to 
excel not, usually, those who are far above us in rank and 
fortune, but our fellows and companions; our rivals aae 
mostly those who move in the same sphere with ourselves. 
The artist vies with his brother artist, the student with his 
fellow student, and even where envy and ill-will mingle, as 
they too often do, with the desire, still, the object of that 
envy is not every one. indiscriminately, who may happen to 
be superior to ourselves, but only our particular rival in the 
race before us. The child at school does not envy Sir Isaac 
Newton, or the illustrious Humboldt, but the urchin that is 
uoxt above himself in the class. The desire of superiority, likd 



496 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

every other desire of the human mind, looks only At ^hat is 
possible to be accomplished, at what is probable, even ; it 
aims not at the clouds, but at things within our leach, things 
to be had for the asking and the striving. But whatever 
view we take of the matter, the desire of superiority cer- 
tainly exists as an active principle in the human mind ; not 
do we see any reason why it should not be admitted as an 
original principle founded in the constitution of our nature, 
or, at least, as one of the forms and modifications of such a 
principle, viz., the love of power. 

27iis Principle requires Restraint. — I would by no means 
deny, however, that the desire now under congideration is 
one which is liable to abuse, and which requires the careful 
and constant restraints of reason and of religious principle. 
The danger is, that envy and ill-will, toward those whom we 
regard as rivals and competitors with us, for those honors 
and rewards which lie in our path, shall be permitted to 
mingle with the desire to excel. Indeed, so frequently are 
the two conjoined, that to the reflecting and sensitive mind, 
superiority itself almost ceases to be desirable, since it is but 
too likely to be purchased at the price of the good- will, and 
kind feeling, of those less fortunate, or less gifted, than our- 
selves. 

Another Form of the same Desire. — The desire of pos* 
session may be regarded, also, as a modification of the desire 
of power. That influence over others which power implies, 
and which is, to some extent, commanded by superiority of 
personal strength or prowess, by genius, by skill, by the 
various arts and address of life, or by the accident of birth 
and hereditary station, is still more directly and generally 
attainable, by another, and perhaps a shorter route — the 
possession of wealth. This, as the world goes, is the key 
that unlocks, the sceptre that controls, all things. Personal 
prowess, genius, address, station, the throne itself, are, in no 
inconsiderable degree, dependent upon its strength, and at 
its command. He who has this can wel' afford to dispense 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 497 

';dtli most other goods and gifts of fortune ; so far, at least, 
as concerns the possession of power. He may be neither 
great, nor learned, nor of noble birth ; neither elegant in per- 
son, nor accomplished in manners, distinguished neither for 
science, nor virtue ; he may command no armies, he may sit 
upon no throne ; yet with all his deficiencies, and even hia 
vices, if so he have wealth, he has power. Unnumbered 
hands are ready to task their skill at his bidding, unnum- 
bered arms, to move and toil and strive in his service, un- 
numbered feet hasten to and fro upon his errands. He 
commands the skill and labor of multitudes whom he has 
never seen, and who know him not. In distant quarters of 
the globe, the natives of other zones and climes hasten upon 
his errands ; swift ships traverse the seas for him ; the furs 
of the extreme North, the rich woods and spices of the tropics, 
the silks of India, the pearls and gems of the East — whatever 
IS costly, and curious, and rare, whatever can contribute to 
Che luxury and the pride of man — these are his, and for him, 
jN'o wonder that he who desires power, should desire that 
which is one of the chief avenues and means to the attain- 
ment of power, and that what is valued, at first, rather as an 
mstrument than as an end, should presently come to be re- 
garded and valued for its own sake. 

A twofold Aspect — Covetousness^ Avarice, — There are, 
if I mistake not, two forms which the desire of possession 
assumes. The one is the simple desire of acquiring, that 
there may be the more to spend ; the other of accumulating, 
adding to the heaps already obtained — which may be don(» 
by keeping fast what is already gotten, as well as by getting 
more. The one is the desire of getting, which is not incon- 
sistent with the desire of spending, but, in fact, grows out 
of that in the first instance ; the other is the desire of in 
creasing, and the corresponding dread of diminishing, what 
(s gotter, which, when it prevails to any considerable de- 
gree, effectually prevents all enjoyment of the accumulated 
treasure^ and becomes one of the most remarkable and most 



4S8 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

odious passions of our perverted nature. The term covet^ 
ousness answers somewhat nearly to the one, avarice to the 
other, of these forms of desire. It must be added, also, that 
it seems to be the natural tendency of the primitive and 
milder form of this principle, to pass into the other and more 
repulsive manifestation. He who begins with desiring 
wealth as a means of gratifying his various wants, too fre- 
quently ends with desiring it for its own sake, and becomes 
that poorest and most miserable of all men, the miser. 

ITie inordinate love of Money not owing wholly to Asso- 
ciation, — Whence arises that inordinate value which the 
raiser attaches to money, which, in reality, is but the mere 
representative of enjoyment, the mere means to an end? 
Why is he so loth to part with the smallest portion of the 
representative medium, in order to secure the reality, the 
end for which alone the means is valuable ? Is it that, by 
the laws of association, the varied enjoyments which gold 
has so often procured, and which have a fixed value in our 
minds, are transferred with all their value to the gold which 
procured them ? Doubtless this is, in some measure, the 
case, and it may, therefore, in part, account for the phe- 
nomenon in question. The gold piece which I take from my 
drawer for the purchase of some needful commodity, has, it 
may be, an increased value in my estimation, from the recol- 
lection of the advantages previously derived from the pos- 
session of just such a sum. But why should such associations 
operate more powerfully upon the miser, than upon any other 
person ? Why are we not all misers, if such associations are 
the true cause and explanation of avarice? Nay, why is not 
the spendthrift the most avaricious of all men, since he has 
more frequently exchanged the representative medium for 
the enjoyment which it would procure, and has, therefore, 
greater store of such associations connected with his gold ? 

The true Explanation, — Dr. Brown, who has admliably 
tJ'eated this part of our mental constitution, has suggested, 
I think, the true explanation of this phenomenon. 



THE CONSTITUTIOIS OF THE MIND 499 

So long as the gold itself is in the miser's grasp, it is, and 
is felt to be, a permanent possession ; when it is expended, 
it is usually for something of a transient nature, which per- 
islies with the using. It seems to him afterward as sc much 
utter loss, and is regretted as such. Every such regretted 
expenditure increases the reluctance to part with another 
portion of the treasure. There is, moreover, another cir- 
cumstance which heightens this feeling of reluctance. The 
enjoyment purchased is one and simple. The gold with 
which it was purchased is the representative, not of that 
particular form of enjoyment alone, but of a thousand others 
as well, any one of which might have been procured with the 
same money. All these possible advantages are now no 
longer possible. Very great seems the loss. Add to this the 
circumstance that the miser, in most cases, probably, has 
accumulated, or set his heart upon accumulating, a certain 
round sum, say so many thousands or hundreds of thousands. 
The spending a single dollar breaks that sum, and, there- 
with, the charm is broken, and he who was a millionaire 
before that unlucky expenditure, is a millionaire no longer. 
It is mainly in these feelings of regret, which attend the 
necessary expenses of the man who has once learned to set 
a high value upon wealth, that avarice finds, if not its source. 
at least its chief strength and aliment. 

Odiousness' of this Vice, — There is, perhaps, no passion 
or vice to which poor human nature is subject, that is, in 
fiome respects, more odious and repulsive than this. There 
is about it no redeeming feature. It is pure and unmingled 
selfishness, without even the poor apology that most othei 
vices can offer, of contributing to the present enjoyment 
and sensual gratification of the criminal. The miser is de- 
nied even this. He covets, not that he may enjoy, but that 
be may refrain from enjoying. 

Strongest hi old Age, — " In the contemplation of many 

of the passions that rage in the heart with greatest fierce- 

ess," says Dr. Brown, " there is some comfort in th e 



500 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

thought tliat, violent as they may be for a time, they are 
not to rage through the whole course of life, at least if life 
be prolonged to old age ; that the agitation which at every 
period will have some intermissions, will grow gradually lesa 
as the body grows more weak, and that the mind will at 
last derive from this very feebleness a repose which it could 
not enjoy when the vigor of the bodily frame seemed to 
give to the passion a corresponding vigor. It is not iu 
avarice, however, that this soothing influence of age is to be 
found. It grows with our growth and with our strength 
but it strengthens also with our very weakness. There are 
no intermissions in the anxieties which it keeps awake ; and 
every year, instead of lessening its hold, seems to fix it more 
deeply within the soul itself, as the bodily covering around 
it slowly moulders away. * * * r^]^^ heart which is 
weary of every thing else is not weary of coveting more 
gold ; the memory which has forgotten every thing else, 
continues still, as Cato says in Cicero's dialogue, to remem- 
ber where its gold is stored ; the eye is not dim to gold 
tha.t is dim to every thing beside ; the hand which it seems 
an effort to stretch out and fix upon any thing, appears to 
gather new strength from the very touch of the gold which 
it grasps, and has still vigor enough to lift once more, and 
count once more, though a little more slowly, what it has 
oeen its chief and happiest occupation thus to lift and count 
for a period of years far longer than the ordinary life of 
man. When the relations or other expectant heirs gathei 
around his couch, not to comfort, nor even to seem to com- 
fort, but to await, in decent mimicry of solemn attendance 
that moment which they rejoice to view approaching ; the 
dying eye can still send a jealous glance to the coffer near 
which it trembles to see, though it scarcely sees, so many 
human forms assembled ; and that feeling of jealous agony, 
which follows and outlasts the obscure vision of floating 
forms that are scarcely remembered, is at once the last mi?, 
nry and the last consciousness of life." 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 501 

§ y. — Desire of Society 

A natural Principle, — There can be little doubt that 
the desire of society is one of the original principles of our 
naturo. It shows itself at a very early period of life, and 
under all the diverse conditions of existence. Its universal 
manifestation, and that under circumstances which preclude 
the idea of education or imitation in the matter, proves it 
an implanted principle, having its seat in the constitution of 
the mind. 

Manifested by Animals of every Species. — The child re- 
joices in the company of its fellows. The lower animals 
manifest the same regard lor each other's society, and are 
unhappy when separated from their kind. Much of the at- 
tachment of the dog to his master may, not improbably, be 
owing to the same source. The beast of labor is cheered 
and animated by his master's presence, and the. patient ox 
as he toils along the furrow, or the highway, moves more will- 
ingly when he hears the well-known step and voice of his 
^wner trudging by his side. Every one knows how much 
the horse is inspirited by the chance companionship, upon 
the way, of a fellow-laborer of his own species. Horses that 
have been accustomed to each other's society on the road, oi 
in the stall, frequently manifest the greatest uneasiness and 
dejection when separated ; and it has been observed by 
those acquainted with the habits of animals, that cattle do 
not thrive as well, even in good pasture, when solitary, as 
when feeding in herds. 

Social Organizations of Animals. — Accordingly w^ 
find most animals, when left to the instinct of nature, asso- 
ciating in herds, and tribes, larger or smaller, according to 
the habits of the animal. They form their little communi- 
ties, have their leaders, and, to some extent, their law^s, ac- 
knowledged and obeyed by all, their established customs 
and modes of procedure — in which associations, thus regu- 
lated, it is impossible not to recognize the e&^e"itial featuit 



602 DESIRES ARISING FR3M 

and principle of what man, in his political associations of the 
same nature, calls the state. What else are the little com- 
munities of the bee, and the ant, and the beaver, but so 
many busy cities, and states, of the insect and animal tribes ? 

The social State not adopted because of its Advantages 
merely. — It may be said that man derives advantages from 
the social state, and adopts it for that reason. Unquestion- 
ably he does derive immense advantages from it ; but is that 
the reason he desires it ? Is the desire of society consequent 
upon the advantages, experienced or foreseen, which accrue 
from it, or are the advantages consequent upon the desire 
and the adoption of the state in question ? Is it matter of 
expediency and calculation, of policy and necessity, or of 
native instinct and implanted constitutional desire ? What 
Ls it with the lower animals ? Has not nature provided in 
their very constitution for their prospective wants, and, by 
implanting in them the desire for each other's society, laid 
the foundation for their congregating in tribes and commu- 
nities ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the same may 
be true of man ? The analogy of nature, the early mani- 
festation of the principle prior to education and experience, 
the universality and uniformity of its operation, and the fact 
that it shows itself often in all its strength under circum- 
stances in which very little benefit would seem to result 
from the social condition, as with the savage races of the 
extreme North, and with many rude and uncultivated tribes 
of the forest and the desert — all these circumstances go to 
show that the desire of society is founded in the nature of 
man, and is not a mere matter of calculation and policy. 

Man^s Nature deficient without this Principle, — And 
this is a sufficient answer to the theory of those who, with 
Hobbes, regard the social condition of man as the result of 
his perception of what is for his own interest, the dictate of 
orudence and necessity. The very fact that it is for his in- 
terest would lead us to expect that some provision should 
be m.ide for it in his nature • and this is precisely what wq 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 503 

find to be tliG case. Were it otherwise, we should feel t>iat, 
in one important j-espect, the nature of man was deficient, 
inferior even to that of the brute. But the truth is, the 
whole history of the race is one complete and compact con 
tradiction of the theory of Hobbes, and sliows. with the 
clearness of demonstration, that the natural condition of 
man is not that of seclusion, and isolation from his fellows, 
but of society and companionship. 

Strength of this Principle, — So strongly is this principle 
rooted in the very depths of our nature, that when man is 
for a length of time shut out from the society of his fellow 
men, he seeks the acquaintance and companionship of 
brutes, and even of insects, and those animals for whom, ir. 
his usual condition, he has a marked repugnance, as a relief 
from utter loneliness and absolute solitude. Mr. Stewart 
1 elates the instance of a French nobleman, shut up for sev- 
eral years a close prisoner in the Castle of Pignerol, during 
the reign of Louis XIV., who amused himself, in his solitude, 
by watching the movements of a spider, to which he at 
length became so much attached, that when the jailor, dis- 
covering his amusement, killed the spider, he was afflicted 
with the deepest grief Silvio Pellico, in his imprisonment, 
amused himself in like manner. Baron Trench soui^ht to 
alleviate the wretchedness of his long imprisonment, by cul- 
tivating the acquaintance or friendship of a mouse, which 
in turn manifested a strong at tachment to him, played about 
his person, and took its food from his hand. The fact hav- 
ing been discovered by the officers, the mouse was removed 
to the guard-room, but managed to find its way back to the 
prison door, and, at the hour of visitation, when the dooi 
was opened, ran into the dungeon, and manifested the 
greatest delight at finding its master. Being subsequently 
removed and placed in a cage, it pined, refused all susten- 
ance, and in a few days died. " The loss of this little com- 
panion mad© n\e for some time quite melancholy," adds tut* 
narrator. 



504 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

Case of Silvio Pellico. — How strongly is the desire foi 
society manifested in these words of Silvio Pellico, when 
forbidden to converse with his fellow-prisoner. "I shall 
do no such thing. I shall speak as long as I have breath, 
and invite my neighbor to talk to me. If he refuse, I 
will talk to my window-bars. I will talk to the hills be- 
fore me. I will talk to the birds as they fly about. I will 
talk." 

Facts of this nature clearly indicate that the love of so 
ciety is originally implanted in the human mind. 

Illustrated from the History of Prison Discipline. — 
The same thing is further evident from the effects of entire 
ieclusion from all society, as shown in the history of prison 
liscipline. 1 or the facts which follow, as well as for some 
of the preceding, I am indebted to Mr. Upham. 

The legislature of Xew York some years since, by way ol 
experiment, directea a number of the most hardened crim- 
mals in the State piison at Auburn, to be confined in solitary 
cells, without labor, and without intei'mission of their soli- 
tude. The result is tnus stated by Messrs. Beaumont and 
Tocqueville, who were subsequently appointed commissioners 
by the French government to examine and report on the 
American system ot prison discipline. " This, trial from 
which so happy a result had been anticipated, was fatal to 
the greater part ol tne convicts ; in order to reform them, 
vhey had been subjectea to complete isolation ; but this ab- 
solute solitude, if noihmg interrupts it, is beyond the strength 
of man ; it destroys the criminal, without intermission, and 
without pity ; it does not reform, it kills. The unfortunates 
on whom this experiment was made, fell into a state of de- 
pression so manifest that their keepers were struck with it ; 
their lives seemed in danger if they remained longer in this 
situation ; five of them had already succumbed during a 
single year ; their moral state was no less alarming ; one of 
them had become insane ; another, in a fit of despair, had 
embraced the opportunity, when the keeper brought him 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. fio^ 

fiomething, to precipitate himself from his cell, running the 
almost certain chance of a mortal fall. Upon those, an<l 
Bimilar effects, the system was finally judged." The same 
results substantially have followed similar experiments in 
other prisons. It is stated by Lieber, that in the peniten- 
tiary of New Jersey, ten persons are mentioned as having 
been killed by solitary confinement. Facts like these show 
how deeply-rooted in our nature is the desire of society, and 
how essential to our happiness is the companionship of our 
fellow-beings. 

§ VI. — Desire of Esteem. 

An important and original Principle, — Of the active 
principles of our nature, few exert a more important mflu- 
ence over human conduct, few certainly deserve a more 
careful consideration, than the regard which we feel for the 
approbation of others. The early period at which this man- 
ifests itself, as well as the strength which it displays, indicate, 
with sufficient clearness, that it is an original principle, 
founded in the constitution of the mind. 

Cannot be regarded as an acquired Habit, — When we 
see children of tender age manifesting a sensitive regard for 
the good opinion of their associates, shrinking with evident 
pain from the censure of those around them, and dehghted 
with the approbation which they may receive ; when, in ma- 
turer years, we find them — children no longer — ready to 
sacrifice pleasure and advantage in every form, and to almost 
any amount, and even to lay down life itself to maintain an 
honorable place in the esteem of men, and to preseive a 
name and reputation unsuUied — and these thmgs we do see 
continually — we cannot believe that what shows itself so 
early, and so uniformly, and operates with such strength^ \a 
only some acquired principle, the result of association, or 
the mere calculation of advantage, and a prudential regara 
to self-interest. In many cases wa know it cannot be so. 

22 



506 DESIRES ARISJNG FROM 

It is not tlie dictate of prudence, or the calculation of ad 
vantajxe, that influences the little child ; nor is it the force 
of such considerations that induces the man of mature year? 
to give up ease, fortune, and life itself, for the sake of hon-or 
and a name. Even where the approbation or censure of those 
who may pass an opinion, favorable, or unfavorable, upon 
our conduct, can be of no benefit or injury to us, that appro- 
bation is still desired, that censure is still feared. We 
prefer the good opinion of even a weak man, or a bad man^ 
to his disesteem ; and even if the odium which, in that 3ase, 
we may chance to incur in the discharge of duty, is felt to 
be unjust and undeserved, and our consciousness of right 
mtention and right endeavor sustains us under all the pres- 
sure of opinion from without, it is impossible, nevertheless; 
not to be pained with even that unjust and undeserved re- 
proach. We feel that, in losing the confidence and esteem 
of others, we incur a heavy loss. 

Want and wretchedness may drive a man to desperate 
and reckless courses ; yet few, probably, can be found, so 
wretched and desperate, who, in all their misery, would not 
prefer the good opinion and the good offices of their fellow- 
man. 

Accounted for neither hy the selfish nor the associativi 
Principle, — It can hardly be, then, a selfish and prudentia) 
principle — this strong desire of esteem ; nor yet can it be tlie 
result of association, as some have inferred ; since it shows 
itself under circumstances where a selfish regard for one-? 
own interests could not be supposed to operate, and with a 
power which no laws of association can explain. 

Ilume'^s TJieory, — Hardly better is it accounted for on 
the principle which Hume suggests, that the good opinion 
of others confirms our good opinion of ourselves, and hence 
18 felt to be desirable. Doubtless there is need enough, in 
many cases, perhaps in most, of some such confirmation, 
N'or would I deny that this may be one element of the 
oleasure which we derive from the esteem of others. Dr 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 50*) 

Brown, in Lis analysis of the principle under consideration, 
aas very justly included this among the components of the 
pleasure thus derived. But it by no means accounts for the 
origin, nor explains the nature, of this desire. It is rather 
an incidental circumstance than the producing cause. 

TJiis Principle as it relates to the Future, — Perhaps in 
no one of its aspects is the desire of esteem more remark 
able, than when it relates to the future — the desire to leave 
a good name behind us, when we are no longer concerned 
with the affairs of time. It would seem as if the good or 
ill opinion of men would be of no moment whatever to us, 
when once we have taken our final departure from the stage 
of life. We pass to a higher tribunal, and the verdict of 
approving or reproving milUons, the applause of nations, 
the condemnation of a world in arms against us, w^ill hardly 
break the silence or disturb the deep repose of the tomb. 
These approving and condemning voices will die away in 
the distance, or be heard but as the faint echo of the wave 
that lashes some far-off shore. 

Yet, though the honors that may then await our names 
will be of as little moment to us, personally, as the perish- 
Dg garlands that the hand of affection may place upon our 
tombs, we still desire to leave a name unsullied at least, if 
not distinguished, even as we desire to live in the memory 
and affections of those who survive us. 

How to he explained, — To what, then, can be owing this 
desire of the good opinion and esteem of those who are to 
come after us, and whose opinion, be it good or ill, can in 
no way affect our happiness ? Philosophers have been sadly 
at a Joss to account for it, especially those who trace the de> 
sire of esteem to a selfish origin. Some, with WoUaston 
and Smit!-, have referred it to the illusions of the imagina 
tion, by which we seem, to ourselves, to be present, and to 
witness th< honors, and listen to the praises, which the future 
is to bestuw. Such an illusion may possibly arise in some 
hour of J evtjrie, some day-dream of the mind ; but it is im- 



508 DESIRES ARISING FROM 

possible to suppose that any one of sound mind slould be 
permanently influenced by such an illusion, or fail to per- 
ceive, when reason resumes her sway, that it is an illusion, 
and that only. 

Admits of Mcplanation in another Way. — If, however 
we regard the desire of the good opinion of others as an 
original principle of our nature, and not as springing from 
selfish considerations, it is easy to see how the same princi- 
ple may extend to the future. If, irrespective of personal 
advantage, we desire the esteem of our fellow-men while 
we live, so, also, without regard to such advantage, we may 
desire their good opinion when we are no longer among 
them. 

True, it is only a name that is transmitted and honored, 
as Wollaston says, and not the man himself. He does not 
live because his name does, nor is he known because his 
name is known. As in those lines of Cowley, quoted by 
Stewart : 

" 'Tis true the two immortal syllables remain , 
But, 1 ye learned men, explain 
What essence, substance, what hypostasis 
In five poor letters is ? 
In these alone does the great Caesar live — 
'Tis all the conquered world could give." 

Yet reason as we may, it is no trait of a noble and mgen- 
uous mind to be regardless of the opinions of the future. 
The common sentiment of men, even the wisest and the 
best, finds itself, after all, much more influenced by such con- 
siderations than by any reasoning to the contrary. 

Not unworthy of a noble Mind, — Nor is it altogether 
unworthy of the ambition of a noble and generous mind to 
I ^ave a good name as a legacy to the future ; in the Ian 
guage of Ml*. Stewart, " to be able to entail on the casual 
combination of letters which compose our name, the respect 
of distant ages, and the blessings of generations yet unborn, 
Nor is it au unworthy object of the most rational benevo 



■i^j 



THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND. 509 

kence to render these letters a sort of magical spell for kind- 
ling the emulation of the wise and good whenever they 
shall reach the human ear." 

Desire of Esteem not a safe Rule of Conduct, — I would 
by no means be understood, however, to present the desiro 
of esteem as, on the whole, a safe and suitable rule of con- 
duct, or to justify that inordinate ambition which too fre* 
quently seeks distinction regardless of the means by which 
It is acquired, or of any useful end to be accomplished. The 
mere love of fame is by no means the highest principle 
of action by which man is guided — by no means the no- 
blest or the safest. It is ever liable to abuse. Its tenden- 
cies are questionable. The man who has no higher principle 
than a regard to the opinions of others is not Ukely to ac- 
complish any thing great or noble. He will lack that prime 
element of greatness, consistency of character and purpose. 
His conduct and his principles will vary to suit the changing 
aspect of the times. He will, almost of necessity, also lack 
firmness and strength of character. It is necessary, some- 
times, for the wise and good man to resist the force and 
pressure of public opinion. He must do that, or abandon 
his principles, and prove false at once to duty, and to him- 
self. To do this costs much. It requires, and, at the same 
time, imparts, true strength. Such strength comes in no 
other way. That mind is essentially weak that depends for ita 
point of support on the applause of man. In the noble lan- 
guage of Cicero, " To me, indeed, those actions seem all the 
more praiseworthy which we perform without regard to 
public favor, and without observation of man. The true 
theatre for virtue is conscience ; there is none greater." 
The praise of man confers no solid happiness, unless it is felt 
to be deserved ; and if it he so, that very consciousness iw 
sufficient. 

Disregard of public Opinion equally unsafe, — It must 
be confessed, however, that if a regard to the opinions of 
others is not to be adopted as a wise and safe rule of coo- 



510 HOPE a:n d fear. 

duct, an entire disregard of public opinion is, on the otliey 
hand, a mark neither of a well ordered mind, nor of a virtu 
ous character. " Contempta fama," says Tacitus, " contem- 
nantur virtutes." 

Accordingly we find that those who, from any cause, hav6 
lost their character and standing in society, and forfeited 
the good opinion of their fellow-men, are apt to become dei*- 
Derate and reckless, and ready for any crime. 



CHAPTER IV 



HOPE AND FEAR. 



Nature of these Emotions, — In the analysis of the sensibili- 
ties, which was given in a preceding chapter, hope and fear 
were classed as modifications of desire and aversion^ having 
reference to the probability that the object which is desired or 
feared may be realized. Desire always relates to something in 
the future, and something that is agreeable, or viewed as such, 
and also something possible, or that is so regarded. Add to 
this future agreeable something the idea or element oi prob- 
ability^ let it be not only something possible to be attained, 
but not unlikely to be, and what was before but mere desire, 
more or less earnest, now becomes hope^ more or less definite 
or strong, according as the object is more or less desirable, 
and more or less likely to be realized. And the same is true 
of fear ; an emotion awakened in view of any object re 
garded as disagreeable, in the future, and as more or less 
likely to be met. 

As desire and aversion do not necessarily relate to dif 
ferent objects, but are simply counterparts of each other, the 
desire of any good implying always an aversion to its loss, 
BO, also, hope and fear may both be awakened by the same 
object, according as the gaining or losing of the object be* 



HOPE AND FEAR. 611 

comes the more probable. What we hope tc gain we- fear 
to lose What we fear to meet, we hope to escape. 

Tkt Strength of the Feeling dependent^ in part^ on tht 
Importance of the Object, — The degree of the emotion, how- 
ever, in either case, the readiness with which it is awakened^ 
and the force and liveliness with which it affects the mind, 
are not altogether in proportion to the probability merely 
that the thing will, or will not, be as we hope or fear, but 
somewhat in proportion, also, to the importance of the ob- 
ject itself. That which is quite essential to our happiness is 
more ardently desired, than what is of much less consequence, 
though, perhaps, much more likely to be attained ; and be- 
cause it is more important and desirable, even a slight pros- 
pect of its attainment, or a slight reason to apprehend its 
loss, more readily awakens our hopes, and our fears, and 
more deeply impresses and agitates the mind, than even a 
much stronger probability would do in cases of less import- 
ance. What we very much desire, we are inclined to hope 
for, what we are strongly averse to, we are readily disposed 
to fear. Nothing is more desirable to the victim of disease 
than recovery, and hence his hope and almost confident ex- 
pectation that he shall recover, when, perhaps, to evejy eye 
but his own, the case is hopeless. Nothing could be m(.i*e 
dreadful to the miser than the loss of his treasure, and notli- 
hig, accordingly, does he so much fear. Poverty ^\'ou]d be 
to him the greatest of possible calamities, and of this, ac- 
oordmgly, he lives in constant apprehension. Yet nothing 
is ready more unlikely to occur. It is the tendency of vi b 
mind, in such cases, to magnify both the danger of tiio t\ I'. 
on the one hand, and the prospect of good on the other 

Illustration from the case of a Traveller, — "There eai. 
be no question," says Dr. Brown, "that he who travels ii. 
the same carriage, with the same external appearances of 
every kind, by which a robber could be tempted or tcMiiliedj 
will be in equal danger of attack, whether he carry with him 
little of which he can be plundered, or such a booty as 



512 HOPE AND FEAK. 

would impoverish him if it were lost. But there can be no 
question, also, that though the probabilities of danger be the 
same, the fear of attack would, in these two case^, be very 
different ; that, in the one case, he would laugh at the ridicu- 
lous terror of any one who journeyed with him, and expressed 
much alarm at the approach of evening ; — and that, in the 
other case, his own eye would watch, suspiciously, every 
Dorseman who approached, and would feel a sort of relief 
when he observed him pass carelessly and quietly along, at 
a considerable distance behind." 

Wneasiness attending the sudden Acquisition of Wealth. 

— This tendency of the imagination to exaggerate the real, 
and conjure up a thousand unreal dangers, when any thing 
of peculiar value is in possession, which it is certainly possi- 
ble, and it may be slightly probable, that we may lose, may, 
perhaps, account for the uneasiness, amounting often to ex 
treme anxiety, that frequently accompanies the sudden ac- 
quisition of wealth. The poor cobbler, at his last, is a merry 
man, whistling at his work, from morning till night. Be- 
queath him a fortune, and he quits at once his last and his 
music ; he is no longer the light-hearted man that he was ; 
his step is cautious, his look anxious and suspicious ; he 
grows care-worn and old. He that was never so happy in 
his life as when a poor man, now dreads nothing so much as 
poverty. While he was poor, there was nothing to fear, but 
every thing to hope, from the future ; now that he is rich, 
there is nothing further to hope, but much to fear, since if 
the future brings any change in his condition, as it is not 
unlikely to do, it will, in all probability, be a change, not 
from wealth to still greater wealth, but from present afflu 
ence to his former penury. 

The Pleasure of Hope surpasses the Pleasure of Reality 

— It will, doubtless, be found generally true, that the pleas- 
ure of hope surpasses the pleasure derived from the realiza- 
tion of the object wished and hoped for. The imagination 
rnvests wi/:h ideal excellence the good that is still future, and 
when the hour of possession an (3 enjovment comes, the 



HOPE AND FEAR 513 

reality does not fully answer the expectation. Or, as m the 
case, already supposed, of the acquisition of wealth, there 
come along with the desired and expected treasure, a thou- 
sand cares and anxieties that were not anticipated, and that 
go far to diminish the enjoyment of the acquisition. From 
these, and other causes, it happens, I beUeve, not unfre 
quently, that those enjoy the most, who have really the 
least, whether of wealth, or of any other good which the 
mind naturally desires as a means of happmess ; nor can we 
fail to see in this a beautiful provision of divine benevolence 
for the happiness of the great human family. 

Influence on the Mind, — -The influence of hope, upon the 
human mind, is universally felt, and recognized, as one of the 
most powerful and permanent of those varied influences, and 
laws of being, that make us what we are. It is limited to no 
period of life, no clime and country, no age of the world, no 
condition of society, or of individual fortune. It cheers us, 
alike, in the childhood of our being, in the maturity of our 
riper years, and in the second childhood of advancing age. 
There is no good which it cannot promise, no evil for which 
it cannot suggest a remedy and a way of escape, no sorrow 
which it cannot assuage. It is strength to the weary, cour- 
age to the desponding, life to the dying, joy to the desolate. 
It lingers with gentle step about the couch of the sufiering, 
when human skill can do no more ; and, upon the tombs of 
those whose departure we mourn, it hangs the unfading gar 
land of a blessed immortality. 

" Angel of life I thy glittering wings explore 
Earth's loveliest bounds, and ocean's widest shore.*' 

The same poet who sang so well the pleasures of hope, 
has depicted the influence of this emotion, on the mind which 
some great calamity has bereft of reason. 

" Hark, the wild maniac sings to chide the gale 
That wafts so slow her lover's distant sail ; 

* :» -i 4c * ip 

?2* 



514 HOPE AND FEAR 

Oft when yon moon has climbed the midnight sk^ 
And the lone sea-bird wakes its wildest cry, 
Piled on the steep, her blazing fagots bum 
To hail the bark that never can return ; 
And still she waits, but scarce forbears to weep, 
That constant love can linger on the deep." 

It is, indeed, a touching incident, illustrative not more of 
the strength of this principle of our nature, than of the) 
benevolence which framed our mental and moral constitu- 
tion, that when, under the heavy pressure of earthly ills, 
reason deserts her empire, and leaves the throne of the hu- 
man mind vacant, Hope still lingers to cheer even the 
poor maniac, and calmly takes her seat upon that vacant 
throne, even as the radiant angels sat upon the stone by the 
door of the empty sepulchre. 



MENTAL PHILOSOPHY. 



DIVISION THIRI 



HE WILL 



i 



I 



THE WILL 



PRELIMINAEY OBSERYATIONS. 

Ijeading Divisions, — In our analysis and distribution of 
the powers of the mind, they were divided into three gen 
eric classes, viz., Intellect, Sensibility, and Will. Of these, 
the two former have been discussed in the preceding pages ; 
it now remains to enter upon the examination of the third. 

Importance and Difficvlty of this Department, — This is, 
m many respects, at once the most important and the most 
difficult of the three. Its difficulty becomes apparent when 
we consider what questions arise respecting this power of 
the mind, and what diverse and conflicting views have been 
entertained, not among philosophers only, but among all 
classes of men, and in all ages of the world, concerning 
these matters. Its importance is evident from the relation 
which this faculty sustains to the other powers of the mind, 
and from its direct and intimate connection with some of 
the most practical and personal duties of life. Whatever 
control we have over ourselves, whether as regards the 
bodily or the mental powers, whatever use and disposition 
it IS in our power to make of the intellectual faculties with 
which we are endowed, and of the sensibilities which accom 
pany or give rise to those intellectual activities, and of the 
physical organization which obeys the behests of the sover- 
eign mind, whatever separates and distinguishes us from the 
mere inanimate and mechanical forces of nature on the one 
hand, or the blind impulses of irrational brute instinct on 
hQ othei ; for all this, be it more or less, we are indebted 



518 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 

to tliat faculty which we call the Will. And hence it hap^ 
pens that in thxS, as in many other cases, the most abstract 
questions of philosophy become the most practical and im- 
portant questions of life. In every system of mental philos- 
ophy the Will holdi^ a cardinal place. The system can no 
more be complete without it, than a steamship without the 
engines that are to propel her. As is the view taken of the 
Will, such is essentially the system. 

Melation to Theology. — Nor is it to be overlooked that 
the doctrine of the WiU is a cardinal doctrine of theology^ 
as well as of psychology. Inasmuch as it has a direct and 
practical bearing upon the formation of character, and upon 
the moral and religious duties of life, it comes properly 
within the sphere of that science which treats of these 
duties, and of man's relation to his Maker. Hence every 
system of theology has to do with the Will ; and according 
to the view taken of this faculty, such essentially is the sys- 
tem. If in psychology, still more in .theology, is this the 
stand-point of the science. 

N'ot^ therefore^ to he treated as a theological Doctrine. — 
Not, however, on this account, is the matter to be treated 
as theological and not strictly psychological. It is a matter 
which pertains properly and purely to psychology. It ia 
for that science which treats of the laws and powers of the 
human mind to unfold and explain the activity of this most 
important of all the mental faculties. To this science the- 
ology must come for her data, so far as she has occasion to 
refer to the phenomena of the WiU. The same may be said 
of ethical, as well as of theological science. In so far as 
they are concerned with the moral powers, and with the 
human will, they must both depend on psychology. With 
in her proper sphere they stand, not as teachers, but ajj 
learners. 

The more Care requisite on this Account. — For this 
reason all the more care is necessary, in the study and ex 
planation of the present theme. An error in this part of 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATl ONS. 519 

the investigation is likely to extend beyond the bounds ot 
the science itself, into other and kindred sciences. Tiif 
most serious consequences may flow from it, in other and 
wider fields of thought. 

Sources of Itiforwation. — The sources of our information 
are essentially the same in this as in the preceding divisions 
of the science. They are twofold ; the consciousness of 
what passes in our own minds, and the observation of 
others. Our single business is to ascertain facts, actua 
phenomena ; not to inquire what might be, or what ought 
to be, according to preconceived notions and theories, but 
what is. This is to be learned, not by reasoning and logical 
argument, but by simple observation of phenomena. Hav- 
mg once ascertained these, we may infer, and conclude, and 
reason from them, as far as we please, and our conclusions 
will be correct, provided the data are correct from which 
we set forth, and provided we reason correctly from these 
principles. 

Method to he pursued. — In treating of this department 
of mental activity, it will be our first business, then, to point 
out the well established and evident facts pertaining to the 
matter in hand, viewed simply as psychological phenomena, 
as modes in which the human mind manifests itself in ac- 
tion, according to the laws of its constitution. These being 
ascertained, we shall be prepared to consider some of the 
more difficult and doubtful matters respecting the will, on 
which the world has long been divided, and which can never 
be intelligently discussed, much less settled, without a clear 
understanding, in the first place, of the psychological facts in 
the case, about which there need be, and should be, no dis- 
pute. 



CHAPTER 1. 

NATURE OF THE WILL. 

WTuU the Win is. — I understand, by the will, that powei 
which tha mind has of determining or deciding what it 'v^'ill 
do, and of putting forth volitions accordingly. The will is 
the power of doing this ; willing, is the exercise of the power ; 
volition, is the deed, the thing done. The will is but an- 
other name for the executive power of the mind. What- 
ever we do intelligently and intentionally, whether it implies 
an exercise of the intellect, or of the feelings, or of both, 
that is an act of the will. All our voluntary, in distinction 
from our involuntary movements of the body, and move- 
ments of mind, are the immediate results of the activity of 
the Wm. 

Condition of a Being desfdtute of Will. — We can, per- 
haps, conceive of a being endowed with intellect and sen- 
sibility, but without the faculty of will. Such a being, 
however superior he might be to the brutes in point of intel- 
ligence, would, so far as regards the capacities of action, be 
even their inferior, since his actions must be, as theirs, the 
result of mere sensational impulse, without even that unerr- 
ing instinct to guide him, which the brute possesses, and 
u'hich supplies the place of reason and intelligent will. To 
this wretched condition man virtually approximates when, 
l)y any means, the will becomes so far enfeebled, or brought 
under the dominion of appetite and passion, as to lose the 
actual conti'ol of the mental and physical powers. 

Will not distinct from the Mind, — It must be borne iu 
mind, of course, as we proceed, that the will is nothing but 
the mind itself willing, or having power to will, and not 
8omethinrj distinct from the mind, or even a part of tbo 



NATURE OF THE WILL. 521 

mind, as the handle and the blade are distinct parts oi the 
knife. The power to think, the power to feel, the power to 
will, are distinct powers, but the mind is one and indivisible, 
exercising now one, now another, of these powers. 

§ L — Elements ikvolved in an Act of Will, 

Proposed Analysis, — In order to the better understand- 
ing of the nature of this faculty, let us first analyze its oper^ 
ations, with a view to ascertain the several distinct stages or 
elements of the mental process which takes place. We will 
then take up these several elements, one by one, for special 
investigation. 

Observation of an Act of Will. — What, then, are the 
essential phenomena of an act of the will ? Let us arrest 
ourselves in the process of putting forth an act of this kind, 
and observe precisely what it is that we do, and what are 
the essential data in the case. I am sitting at my table. I 
reach forth my hand to take a book. Here is an act of my 
will. My arm went not forth self-moved and spontaneously, 
it was sent, was bidden to go ; the soul seated within, ani- 
mating this physical organism, and making it subservient to 
her will, moved that arm. Here, then, is clearly an act ol 
will. Let us subject it to the test of observation. 

The first Element, — First of all, then, there was evi- 
dently, in this case, something to be done — an end to be ac- 
complished — a book to be reached. The action, both of 
body and of mind, was directed to that end, and but for 
that the volition would not have been put forth. It is to be 
observed, moreover, that the end to be accomplished, in 
this case, was 2i possible one — the book was, or was supposed 
to be, within my reach. Otherwise I should not have at* 
tempted to reach it, 

A second Element. — I observe, furthermore, in the case 
under consideration, a motive, impelling or inducing to that 
end ; a reason why I willed the act. It was curiosity, j)er. 



622 



NATURE OF THE WILL. 



haps, to see what the book was, or it may have been some 
other pnnciple cf my nature, which induced me to put forth 
the volition. 

A further Step in the Process, — But the motive does 
not, itself, produce the act. It is merely the reason why I 
produce it. It has to do not directly with the action, but 
with me. Its immediate effect terminates on me, and it is 
only indirectly that it affects the final act. The next step in 
the process, then, is to be sought, not in the final act, but in 
my mind as influenced by motive ; and that step is my 
choice. Previous to my putting forth the volition to move 
my arm, there was a choice or decision to do so. In view 
of the end to be accomplished, and influenced by the mo- 
tive, I made up my mind — to use a common but not inapt 
expression — to perform the act. The question arose, for 
the instant. Shall I do it ? The very occurrence of a thing 
to be done, a possible thing, and of a motive for doing it, 
raises, of itself, the question. Shall it be done ? The ques- 
tion may be at once decided in the affirmative, in the ab- 
sence of reasons to the contrary, or, in the absence of reflec- 
tion, so quickly decided, that, afterward, we shall hardly be 
conscious that it was ever before the mind. Or it may be 
other^dse. Reasons to the contrary suggest themselves 
— counter influences and motives — in view of which we 
hesitate, deliberate, decide ; and that decision, in view of all 
the circumstances, is owv preference^ or choice. In most cases 
the process is so rapid as to escape attention ; but subsequent 
reflection can hardly fail to detect such a process, more or 
less distinctly marked. 

Tlte final Stage of the Act, — We have reached now the 
])oint at wliich it is decided, in our own minds, what course to 
pursue. In the case supposed, I have decided to take up the 
book. The volition is not yet put forth. Nothing now 
remains, however, but to put forth the volition, and at once 
the muscular organism, if unimpeded and in health, obeys the 
N\ ill. 11ie thing is done, and the experim-^nt concluded. 



NATURE OF THE WILL. 523 

Summary of Results, — I repeat now the experiment ton 
or a hundred times, but always with like results. I find 
always, where there is an act of the will, some end to be ob- 
tained, some motive, a choice, an executive volition. I con- 
clude that these are the essential phenomena of all voluntary 
action. 

Of these, the two former, viz., the end to be accomplished^ 
and the motive, may be regarded as more properly condi^ 
lions of volition, than constituent elements of it. Still, so 
intimately is the volition connected with one, at least, of 
these conditions, viz., the motive, that it claims special con 
sideration. The ends to be accomplished by volition are as 
numerous as the infinite variety of human purposes and ao 
tions, and, of course, admit of no complete enumeration or 
classification. We confine our further attention, then, to 
these elements — the motive, the choice, the executive voli- 
tion — and proceed to their more careful investigation as 
phenomena of the will. 

gIL — iNYESTiaATION OF THESE ELEMENTS. 

The first of these Elements^ Motive^ always implied in Ac- 
tion, — I. The Motive ^ — that which incites the mind to 
action — the reason why it acts, and acts as it does. We 
never act without some such incitement, some reason for 
acting ; at least this is true of all our intelligent and volun • 
tary actions, of which, alone, we now speak. It may b<? 
nothing more than mere present impulse, mere animal appe- 
tite or passion , even that is a motive, a reason why we act. 
We cannot conceive of any being having the power of vol" 
untary action, and exerting that power without any reason 
whatever why he did it. The reason may, or may not, 
be clearly apprehended by his own mind — that is another 
question ; but whether distinctly and clearly recognized as 
such, or not, by our own minds, a reason there always is for 
what we do. 



524 NATURE OF THE TVILL. 

Tnwhat Sense this Term employed, — Strictly speaking, 
the motive is not any and every influence which may beai 
upon the mind as an inducement to action, but only the 
prevailmg inducement, that which actually moves or induces 
us to perform the proposed act. In this sense, there may be 
many diflferent inducements, but only one motive. Such, 
however, is not the ordinary use of the term. That is 
usually called a motive which is of a nature to influence the 
mind, and induce volition, whether it is, in the given case, 
oflfective, or not. To avoid confusion, I adopt the general use. 

Nature of Motives, — As to the nature of the motives 
from which we act, they are manifestly of two kinds, and 
widely distinct. There is desire, and there is the sense of 
moral obligation or duty ; — the agreeable, and the right ; 
each of these constitutes a powerful motive to action. We 
find ourselves, under the influence of these motives, acting, 
now from desire, now from sense of duty, now in view of 
what is in itself agreeable, and now in view of what is right ; 
and the various motives which influence us and result in 
action, may be resolved into one or the other of these power 
ful elements. 

These Elements distinguished, — These are quite distinct 
elements, never to be confounded with, nor resolved into 
each other. Desire is the feeling which arises in view of 
some good not in present possession, something agreeable, 
and to be obtained ; it looks forward to that ; its root and 
spring is that grand principle of our nature, the love of hap 
piness. Its appeal is to that. Its strength lies in thao. 
Duty^ as we have already shown — that sense of obligation 
which is implied in the very idea of right — is quite anothei 
principle than that, not founded in that ; springs not from 
self-love, or the desire of happiness; is, on the contrary, a 
simple, primitive, fundamental idea of the human mind, based 
m the inherent, essential, eternal nature of things. Given 
the right, the perception of right, and t.iere is given, also 
along with it, the sense of obligation. 



NATURE OF THE WILL. 505 

Their Acticn not always in Unison. — These two motives 
may act in different directions ; they frequently do so. De- 
sire impels me one way, duty another. Conflict then ariscS. 
Which shall prevail, desire or duty, depends on circumstan- 
ces, on my character already formed, my habits of thought 
and feeling, my degree of selt-control, my conscientiousness, 
the strength of my native propensities, the clearness with 
which, at the time, I apprehend the different courses of 
conduct proposed, their character and tneir consequences. 
Desire may prevail, and then I go counter to my sense of 
obligation. Remorse follows. I am wretched. I suffer 
penalty. Duty prevails, and I do that which I believe to be 
right, regardless of consequences. I suffer in property, 
health, life, external good, but am sustained by that approv- 
ing voice within, which more than compensates for all such 
losses. 

That there are these two springs or motives of human ac- 
tion, and that they are distinct from each other, is what I 
affirm, and what no one, I think, who reflects on what con- 
sciousness reveals, will be disposed to deny. 

Motives of Duty not resolvable into Motives of Interest. 
— Should any still contend that this very approval of con- 
science, this peace and happiness which result from doing 
right, are, themselves, the motive to action, in the case sup 
posed, and so, self-love, a desire of happiness, is, after all, the 
only motive^ I reply, this is an assumption utterly without 
proof. Consciousness contradicts it. The history of the 
human race contradicts it. There is such a thing as doing 
right for its own sake, irrespective of good to ourselves. 
Every man is conscious of such distinction, and of its force 
as a motive of conduct. Every virtuous man is conscious of 
acting, at times, at least, from such a motive. 

Coincidence of Desire and Duty. — It is only when de- 
sire and duty coincide, that the highest happiness can be 
reached, when we no longer desire and long for, because W6 
no longer view as agreeable, that which is not strictly right. 



526 NATURE OF THE WILL. 

This IS a state never fully realized in this life. It implies 
perfection of character, and a perfect world. 

Desires^ as Motives of Action^ further distinguished, — Du- 
sire, and the feelirg of obligation, I have spoken of as mo- 
tives of conduct. The former, again, is not always of one 
sort. Desire is, indeed, in itself, a simple element, springing 
from one source, but not always directed to the same object. 
We desire now one thing, now another. There are two 
clashes, at least, of desires quite easy to be distinguished, the 
physical and the psychical, the one relating to the wants of the 
body, the other to the craving of the higher nature ; the 
mere animal instincts, propensities, passions, looking to ani- 
mal gratification ; and the higher rational self-love, which 
seeks the true and permanent well-being, under the guidance 
of reason. Each of these furnishes a powerful motive, or 
class of motives, to human action. They are each, however, 
but different forms of desire. 

The second Element^ Choice^ always involved in Volition. 
— II. Choice. — This is an essential element in volition, and 
next in order. As, setting aside such acts as are purely spon- 
taneous and mechanical, we never, intelligently and pur- 
posely, do any thing without a volition to do it, so we never 
put forth volition without exercising choice. The act per- 
formed is not a voluntary act, unless it is something which I 
choose to do. True, my choice may be influenced by ex- 
traneous causes — may even be constrained — circumstances 
may virtually compel me to choose as I do, by shutting me 
up to this one course, as being either the only right, or the 
only desirable course. And these circumstances, that thua 
influence my decisions, may be essentially beyond my con- 
trol, as they not unfrequently are. Yet, all things considered, 
it is my choice to do thus and not otherwise, and so long as 
I do choose, and am free to act accordingly, the act is volun- 
tary. 

IVie Position illustrated, — This may be illustrated by the 
case of the soldier who, in the bombardment of his native 



NATURE OF THE WILL 527 

City, is ordered to point his piece in the direction of his own 
dwelling. To disobey, is death. To obey, is to put in 
jeopardy those who are dear to him. He hesitates, but 
finally chooses to obey orders. He aims his piece as directed, 
gadly against his inclination ; yet, on the whole, it is hia 
choice to do it. He prefers that to the certainty of dL^ 
honorable death, a death which would in no way benefit or 
protect, those whom he wishes to save. A man, of his o\mi 
accord lies down upon the surgeon's operatuig table, and 
(Stretches out his arm to the knife. It is his choice — a hard 
choice, indeed, but, nevertheless, decidedly his choice. He 
prefers that to still greater sufi:ering, or even death. In 
these cases — and they are only instances and illustrations oi 
what, in a less marked and decided way, is continually oc- 
curring — we see the utmost strain and pressure of circum- 
stances upon a man's choice, making it morally certain that 
he will decide as he does, shutting him up to that decision, 
in fact, yet his choice remaining unimpaired, and his act a 
free act ; free, because he does as he, on the whole, and 
under the circumstances, chooses to do. He does the thing 
voluntarily. 

Another Case supposed, — Suppose, now, the man were * 
forcibly seized, and borne by sheer strength to the table, 
and placed upon it, and held there while the operation was 
performed. In that case, he no longer acts, is only acted upon, 
no longer chooses and wills to go there, nay, chooses and 
wills directly the contrary. The difierence in the two cases, 
is the difierence between a voluntary act, chosen reluctantly, 
indeed, and under the pressure of an exigency, but still 
chosen^ and the passive suflTering of an action which, so far 
from being voluntary, was, in no sense, an act of his own. 

Choice always influenced by Circutastances, — ISTow, as 
regards the actual operation of things, our choices are, in 
feet, always influenced by circumstances, and these circum- 
stances are various and innumerable ; a thousand seen and 
aiiseen influences are at work upon us, to aflect oui* decisions 



# • 



528 KATUKE OF THE WILL. 

Were it possibit uO estimate aright all these influences, to 
calculate, with precision, their exact weight and effect, then 
our choice, under any given circumstances, might be pre- 
dicted with unerring certainty. This can never be exactly 
known to man. Sagacity may approximate to it, and may, 
so far, be able to read the future, and predict the probable 
•conduct of men in given circumstances. To the omniscient, 
these things are fully known, and to his eye, therefore, the 
whole future of our lives, our free choices and voluntary acts, 
Jie open before they are yet known to ourselves. 

Conclusion stated, — From what has been said, it appeara 
that it is not inconsistent with the nature of choice, to be 
influenced, nay, decided by circumstances, even when those 
circumstances are beyond our control. 

Diversity of Objects esse7itial to Choice. — What is implied 
in an act of choice ? Several things. In order to choice, 
there must, of course, be diversity of objects from which to 
choose. If there were but one possible cours/^ to be pur- 
sued, it were absurd to speak of choice. Hence, even in 
the cases just now supposed, there was a diversity of objects 
from which to choose — death, or obedience to orders, suffer- 
ing from the surgery, or greater suffering and danger with- 
out it, and betv^een these the man made his choice. 

Liberty of Selection also essential, — As a further con- 
dition of choice, there is implied liberty of selection from 
among the different objects proposed. It were of no use 
that there should be different courses of conduct — different 
ends, or different means of attaining an end — proposed to 
our understanding, if it were not in our power to select 
which we pleased^ if we were not free to go which way we 
will. Choice always implies that different actions and vo- 
litions are possible, and are, as such, submitted to our de- 
cision and preference. There can be no volition without 
choice, and no choice without liberty to choose. Whatever 
mterferes, then, with that liberty, and diminishes or takes it 
away, interferes, also, with my choice, and diminishes oi 



NATURE OF THE WILL. 529 

destroys that. The very essence of a voluntary act consists' 
in its being an act of choice, or a free-will act. No tyranny 
can take this away, except such as destroys, also, all volun 
t:iry and responsible action. You may command me tc 
burn incense on a heathen altar. The very command leaves 
it optional w^ith me whether to obey. If I do not, the pen- 
alty is death. Very well — I may choose the penalty, rather 
than the crime, and no power on earth can coni2^el me to 
choose otherwise. I die, but I die a free man. True, you 
may bind me, and by mechanical force urge me to the altar, 
and by superior strength of other arms, may cause my hand 
to put incense there, but it is not my act then ; it is the act 
of those who use me as a mere passive instrument ; it is no 
more my act, than it would be the act of so much iron or 
wood^ or other instrument. 

Deliberation implied, — Choice, moreover, implies delio 
eration, the balancing and weighing of inducements, the 
comparison and estimate of the several goods proposed, the 
several ends and objects, the various means to those ends ; 
the eycrcise of reason and judgment in this process. I see 
befor 3 me different courses, different ends proposed to my 
understanding, am conscious of diverse inducements and 
reasons, some urging me in one direction, some in anotner. 
Native propensities impel me toward this line of conduct. 
Rational self-love puts in a claim for quite another procedure. 
Benevolence, and a sense of duty, it may be, conspire to 
urge me in still another direction. I am at liberty to choose 
I must choose. I can go this way or that, must go in one oi 
the other. I hesitate, deliberate, am at a loss. 

Now there is no choice which does not virtually involve 
Bome process of this kind. It may be very rapid ; so rapid 
as to escape detection, in many cases, so that we are hardly 
conscious of the process. In other cases, we are painfully 
conscious of the whole scene ; we hesitate long, are in doubt 
and suspense betw^een conflicting motives and interests. 
Desire and dutv wage a fierce contest within us Shall we 



530 NATURE OF THE WILL - 

ehoose thb agreeable ? Shall we choose the right ? And 
then, again, which is really the agreeable, and which is irul^ 
the right ? 

Final Decision, — As the result of this deliberation, we 
finally decide, one way, or the other. This decision is ouj 
preference^ our choice. Our minds, as we say, are made up 
what to do, what course to pursue. When the time comeSj 
we shall act. Something may prevent our having our Avay^ 
opportunity may not offer, or we may see fit, subsequently 
to reconsider and revoke our decision. Otherwise, oui 
choice is carried out in action. 

Choice implies, then, these things : diversity of objects, 
liberty of selection, deliberation, decision, or preference. 

The final Element, — III. Executive Volition. — In 
our investigation of the several elements or momenta of an 
act of the Will, we have as yet considered but two, viz., 
motive and choice — the first, more properly a condition of 
voluntary action, than itself a constituent part of it, yet 
still, a condition so indispensably connected with volition, as 
to require investigation in connection with the latter. It 
only remains now to notice the last stage of the process, the 
final element, which added, the process is complete — that 
is, the executive act of the ^nind^ volition properly so called. 
When the objects to be attained have been presented, when 
the motives or inducements to action have been considered, 
when, in view of all, the choice or preference has been 
made, it still remains to put forth the volition, or the act 
;v^ill not be performed. This may never happen. Oppor 
t unity may never offer. But suppose it does. We wiU^ 
This done, the bodily mechanism springs into play, obedi 
ent to the call and command of the soul. 

Even now, the action does not of necessity correspond to 
the volition. Even now, we may be disappointed. Other 
wills may be in action in opposition to ours. Other arras 
may move in obedience to those other wills. Or we may 
find the thing too much for us to do, impracticable, beyond 



RELATION OF THE WILL, ETC fir,l 

oui* stieagth aud means, or disease may palsy the fiame, so 
that it shall not obey the mandate of the spirit. Never- 
theless the volition is complete. That depends not on the 
success of the exertion. We have vnlled^ and with that 
our mental action ceases. What remains is physical, not 
psychological. If we succeed, if the volition finds itself 
answered in execution, then, also, the act once performed i 
thenceforth out of our power. It is dune, and stands a per 
manent historic event, beyond our control, beyond our decis 
ion or revocation. Our power over it ceases in the moment 
of volition. Our connection with it may never cease. It 
moves on in its inevitable career of consequences, and, like a 
swift river, bears us along with it. We have no more to do 
with it, but it has to do with us ; it may be to our sorrow, 
it may be, forever. 

Such are, in brief, the main psychological facts, relating 
to the will, as they offer themselves to our conscioiisnesa 
and careful inspection. 



CHAPTER 11. 

RELATION OF THE WILL TO OTHER POWERS OF THE Mmr 

Activity of the Intellect in Volition, — It is a matter oi 
some importance to ascertain the relation which the will 
sustains to the other mental powers. There can be no 
doubt that the activity of the will is preceded, in all cases 
by that of the intellect. I must first perceive some object 
presented to my understanding, before I can will its attain 
ment. In the case already supposed, the book lying on my 
table is an object within the cognizance of sense, and to per 
ceive it is an act of intellect. Until perceived, the will puts 
not forth any volition respecting it. Nor does the mere 
perception occasion volition. In connection with the per- 



532 RELATION OF THE WILI 

ception of the book, ideas present themselves to iho mind, 
curiosity is awakened, the mind is set upon a train of 
thought, which results in the desire and the volition to take 
the book. In all this the intellect is active. In a word, 
whatever comes in as a motive to influence the mind in 
favor of, or against a given course, must in the first inst ance 
address itself to the understanding, and be comprehended 
oj that power, before it can influence the mental decisions, 
A motive which I do not comprehend is no motive ; a 
reason which I do not perceive, or understand, is, to me, no 
reason. 

Activity of the Sensihilities also involved, — But does 
volition immediately follow the action of the intellect in the 
ease supposed ? Do we first understand, and then will ; or 
does something else intervene between the intellectual per- 
ception and the volition ? Were there no feeling awakened 
by the intellectual perception, .would there be any volition 
with regard to the object perceived ? I think, Ifeel^ I will ; 
is not that the order of the mental processes ? " We can 
easily imagine," says Mackintosh, " a percipient and think- 
ing being without a capacity of receiving pleasure or pain. 
Such a being might perceive what we do ; if we could con 
ceive him to reason, he might reason justly ; and if he were 
to judge at all, there seems no reason why he should not 
judge truly. But what could induce such a being to wilt 
or to act f It seems evident that his existence could only 
be a state of passive contemplation. Reason, as reason, can 
never be a motive to action. It is only when we superadd 
to such a being sensibility, or the capacity of emotion, or 
sentiment of desire and aversion, that we introduce him in- 
to the world of action." 

Opinion of Locke, — To the same effect, Locke : " Good 
and evil, present and absent, it is true, work upon the mind, 
but that which immediately determines the will from time 
to time, to every voluntary action, is the uneasiness of de^ 
sire^ fix«^d on some absent good, either negative, as indolence 



TO OTHER POWERS OF THE MIND. 533 

to one in pain, or positive, as enjoyment of pleasure. Thai 
It is this uneasiness that determines the will to the succes- 
«ive voluntary actions, whereof the greatest part of our Uvea 
IS made up, and by which we are conducted through differ- 
ent courses to different ends, I shall endeavor to show both 
from experience and the reason of the thing." Elsewhere 
ftgain : " For good, though appearing and allowed ever so 
great, yet till it has raised desires in our minds, and there- 
by made us uneasy in its want, it reaches not our wills ; we 
are not within the sphere of its activity." 

Testimony of Consciousness. — The general opinion of 
philosophical writers is now in accordance with the views 
thus expressed. The intellect they regard as acting upon 
the will not directly, but through the medjrm of the sensi- 
bilities, the various emotions and desires v»^hich are awak- 
ened by the perceptions of the intellect. That this is the 
correct view, admits of little doubt. Tb^ question is best 
Bettled by an appeal to consciousness. Ir che case supposed, 
the perception of the book upon the table does not, of itself 
directly influence my will. It is not until some feeling is 
aroused, my curiosity excited, or desire, in some form, 
awakened, that my will acts. The object must not only be 
perceived, but perceived as agreeable, and the wish to pos- 
sess it be entertained, before the volition is put forth. 

Whether this Rule applies in all Cases. — That this is m 
as regards a large class of our volitions, will hardly be de 
nied. When the motive to action is of the nature of desire^ 
it is the sensibility, and not the intellect, that is directly, con- 
cerned in shaping the action of the will. I first perceive the 
object to be agreeable ; I next desire its possession, as such ; 
then I will its attainment. The intellectual activity give^ 
rii^e to emotion, and the latter leads to volition. 

It may be supposed, however, that when the motive wMcli 
mfluences the will is not of the nature of desire, but rathei 
of a sense of obligation or duty, then the case is other wib'e. 
the inter?ctual j srception of the right, and of the obligation 



534 RELATION OF THE WILL 

to do the right, being sufficient of themselves to lead the 
mind to action. But as the intellectual perception of the 
agreeable is followed by emotion or desire in view of the 
eame, so tlie intellectual perception of the right is followed, 
in like manner, by a certain class of feelings or emotions, 
usually called moral sensibilities ; and it is the feeling^ in 
either case, and not the knovnng^ the sensibility, and not the 
intellect, that is directly in contact with the will. I know 
that I ought, and I feel that I ought, are states of mind 
closely connected, indeed, but not identical ; and it is the 
latter which leads directly to volition. 

Desire and Volition not alvmys distinguished, — Another 
point requiring investigation, is the precise relation between 
volition and desire. Are they the same thing, and if not, 
wherein do they differ ? It has been the custom of certain 
writers not to distinguish between desire and volition, as 
states of mind, or to regard them as differing, if at all, only 
in degree. Thus Condillac, and writers of the French 
school, as also Brown, Mill, and others, in Great Britain, 
have treated of volition as only a stronger degree of desire, 
which, again, is only a form of emotion. Even M'Cosh, in 
his treatise on moral government, while insisting on the dis 
tinction between emotions and desires, regards wishes, de- 
sires, and volitions, as belonging essentially to the same 
class of mental states. " Appealing to consciousness," says 
that able and elegant writer, " we assert that there is a class 
of mental states embracing wishes, desires, volitions, which 
cannot be analyzed into anything else. These mental states 
or affections are very numerous, and occupy a place in the 
human mind second to no other. They differ from each 
other in degree, and possibly even in some minor qualities 
but they all agree in other and more important respects 
and so are capable of Deing arranged under one head.' 
And in a subsequent paragraph he remarks to the sanio 
effect, " Later mental inquirers are generally disposed to ad 
tnit that the volition the positive determination tc take l 



TO OTHER POWERS OF THE MIND 635 

particular step, the resolution, for instance, to give a sum of 
money to take our friend to a warmer climate for the restor- 
ation of his health, is more than a mere emotion. But if we 
are thus to constitute a separate attribute to which to refer 
volition, it is worthy of being inquired whether we should 
not arrange, under the same head, wishes, desires, and the 
cognate states, as being more closely allied in their nature to 
vclitions than to the common emotions." 

The Difference generic, — It is on this latter point that 
we are compelled to join issue with the writer just quoted. 
A wish, a desire, are forms o^ feeling ; a volition is not. 
The difference is generic, and not one of degree merely. A 
desire differs from any other form of feeling, not so mucli, 
not so radically, as it differs fiom a volition. A wish or desire 
may lead to volition, or it may not. We often wish or de- 
sire what we do not will. The object of our desires may 
not be within the sphere of our volitions, may not be pos- 
sible of attainment, may not depend, in any sense, upon our 
wills. Or it may be something which reason and the law 
of right forbid, yet, nevertheless, an object of natural desire. 
And so, on the other hand, we may, from a sense of dut}', 
or from the dictates of reason and prudence, will what is con- 
trary to our natural inclinations, and our volitions, so fai 
from representing our desires, in that case, may be directly 
contrary to them. 

Opinion of Held, — Accordant with the view now t x- 
J ressed, are the following remarks of Di Reid : " With re- 
gard to our actions, we may desire what we do not will, and 
will what we do not desire, nay, what we iiave a great aver- 
sion to. A man a-thirst has a strong desire to drink, but, 
for some particular reason, he determines not to gratify his 
desire. A judge, from a regard to justice and the duty of 
his office, dooms a criminal to die, while, from humanity and 
particular affection, he desires that he should live. A man, 
for health, may take a nauseous draught for which he has 
no desire, t'^t a great aversion Desire, therefore, ovec 



X 



536 RELATION OF THE WI1.L 

\^hen its object is some action of our own, is only an excite- 
ment to the will, but is not volition. The determination of 
the mind may be not to do what we desire to do." 

Opinion of Locke, — To the same effect is the following 
from Locke : "This caution, of being careful not to be mis- 
led by expressions that do not enough keep up the difference 
between the loill and several acts of the mind that are quite 
distinct from it, I think the more necessary, because I find 
the will often confounded with several of the affections, es- 
pecially desire^ and one put for the other, and that by men 
who would not willingly be thought not to have had very 
iistinct notions of things, and not to have writ very clearly 
about them. This, I imagine, has been no small occasion of 
obscurity and mistake in this matter ; and therefore is, as 
much as m.ay be, to be avoided. For, he that shall turn his 
thoughts inward upon what passes in his mind when he 
wills^ shall see that the will or power of volition is convers- 
ant about nothing, but that particular determination of the 
mind, whereby, barely by a thought, the mind endeavors tc 
give rise, continuation, or stop to any action which it takes 
to be in its power. This well considered, plainly shows that 
the will is perfectly distinguished from desire^ which, in the 
very same action may have quite a contrary tendency from 
that which our will sets us upon. A man whom I cannot 
deny, may oblige me to use persuasions to another, which, 
at the same time I am speaking, I may wish may not prevail 
on him. In this case, it is plain, the will and desire run 
counter. I will the action that tends one way, while my 
desire tends another, and that right contrary. Whence it 
is evident,"'' he adds, " that desiring and willing are two 
distinct acts of the mind ; and, consequently, that the will^ 
which is but the power of volition^ is much more dis- 
tinct from desire P 

Testimony of Consciousness. — The testimony of con- 
B3iousness seems to be clearly in accordance with the views 
now exj>ressed We readily distinguish between our de- 



TO OTHER POWERS OF THE MIND. 537 

sires and our volitions. We are conscious of willing, oftcj, 
what is contrary to our desires ; the course which honor ajid 
duty approve, and which we resolutely carry out, Is in dis- 
regard of many fond and cherished desires which still agitate 
the bosom. And even when our desires and volitions coin- 
cide, it requires but little reflection to discover the difierence 
between them. It is a difference recognized in the common 
language of life, and in the writings and conversation of men 
who are by no means theorists or metaphysicians. 

Further Illustrations of the Distinction, — Mr. Upham, 
who has very clearly and ably maintained the distinction 
now in question, refers us, in illustration, to the case of 
Abraham offering his son upon the altar of sacrifice, sternly, 
resolutely willing, in obedience to the divine command, 
what must have been repugnant to every feeling of the 
father's heart ; to the memorable instance of Brutus order- 
ing and witnessing the execution of his own sons, as con- 
spirators against the State, the struggle between the strong 
will and the strong paternal feeling evidently visible in his 
countenance, as he stood at the dreadful scene ; and the case 
of Virginius, plunging the knife into the bosom of a beloved 
daughter, whose dishonor could in no other way be averted. 
In all these, and many other similar cases, private interests 
and personal affections are freely and nobly sacrificed, in 
favor of high public interests, and moral ends ; yet, to do 
this, the will must act in opposition to the current of natural 
feeling and desire. 



CHAPTER III. 

FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

Pfi>blem>s respecting the Will- — Our attention has thus 
far been directed to the psychological facts respecting the 
will, in itself considered, and also in its relations to the other 
mental powers. It becomes necessary now, in order to the 
more complete understanding of the matter, to look at some 
of the disputed points, the grand problems, respecting the 
human will, which have for ages excited and divided the re- 
flecting world. The way is prepared for these more difficult 
questions, when once tbe simple facts, to which our attention 
has already been directed, are well understood. These 
questions are numerous, but, if I mistake not, they all resolve 
themselves virtually into the one general problem of the 
freedom of the will, or, at least, so link themselves with that 
as to admit of discussion in the same connection. 

Freedom^ what, — In approaching this much-disputed 
question, it is necessary to ascertain, in the first place, what 
is meant by freedom, and what by freedom of the wiU^ else 
we may discuss the matter to no purpose. Various defini- 
tions of freedom have been given. It is a word in very com- 
mon use, and, in its general application, not liable to be 
joisunderstood. Every one who understands the ordinary 
language of life, knows well enough what freedom is. It 
denotes the opposite of restraint ; the power to do what one 
likes, pleases, is inclined to do. My person is free, when it 
can come and go, do this or that, as suits my inclination 
Any faculty of the mind, or organ of the body, is free, when 
its own specific and proper action is not Mndc^ed, Freedom 
of motion, is power to move when and where we please 



FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 5JJ9 

Freedom of speech, is power to say what we like. Freedom 
of action, is power to do what we like. 

Freedom of the Will^ what, — What, then, is freedom of 
the will ? What can it be but the power of exercising, with- 
out restraint or hindrance, its ow^n specific and proper func- 
tion, viz., the putting forth voHtions, just such volitions a8 
we please. This, as we have seen, is the proper office of the 
will, its specific and appropriate action. If nothing prevents 
or restrains me from forming and putting forth such vohtionp 
as I please, then my will is free ; and not otherwise. 

Freedom of the will, then, is not power to do what one 
wills,, in the sense of executing volitions when formed 
that is simple freedom of the limbs, and muscular apparatus^ 
not of will — a freedom which may be destroyed by a stroke 
of paralysis, or an u*on chain ; — it is not a freedom of walk- 
ing, if one wills to walk, or of singing, or flying, or moving 
the right arm, if one is so disposed. That is freedom, but 
not freedom of the will. My will is free, not when I can do 
what I will to do, but when I can will to do just what I 
please. Whatever freedom the will has, must lie within its 
own proper sphere of action, and not without it ; must re- 
late to that, and not to something else. This distinction, so 
very obvious, has, nevertheless, been sometimes strangely 
overlooked. 

Is, then, the human will free, in the sense now defined ? 
Let us first notice some presumptions in favor of its freedom • 
then the more direct argument. 

§ L — Peesumptions in Favoe of Freedom. 

Hie general Conviction of Freedom a Presumption in its 
Favor, — 1. It is a presumption in favor of freedom that 
there is among men, a very general, not to say universal 
conviction of freedom. It is a prevalent idea, an established 
conviction and belief of the mind. We are conscious of this 
belief cnirselves, we observe it in others. When we perform 



540 FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

any act, or choose any course of conduct, we are impressed 
with the belief that we could have done or chosen differently, 
had we been so disposed. We never doubt or call in ques- 
tion this ability, in regard to the practical matters of life. 
The languages and the literature of the world bear witness 
to the universality of this belief Now this general convic- 
tion and firm belief of freedom constitute, to say the least, a 
presumption, and a strong one, in favor of the doctrine. If 
men are free to do as they like, then they are free to will aa 
they like, for the willing precedes the doing ; and if they 
are not thus free, how happens this so general conviction oi 
a freedom which they do not possess ? 

The Appeal to Consciousness. — The argument is some- 
times stated, by the advocates of freedom, in a form which 
is liable to objection. The appeal is made directly to con 
sciousness. We are conscious^ it is said, of freedom, conscious 
of a power, when we do any thing, to do otherwise, to take 
some other course instead. Strictly speaking, we are con- 
scious only of our present state of mind. I may know the 
past; but it is not a matter of consciousness; I may also 
know, perhaps, what might have been, in place of the actual 
past, but of this I am not conscious. When I experience a 
sensation, or put forth a volition, I am conscious of that sen- 
sation or volition ; but I am not conscious of what never 
occurred, that is, .of some other feeling or volition instead of 
an actual one. I may have a firm conviction, amounting 
even to knowledge, that at the moment of experiencing that 
feeling, or exercising that volition, it was possible for me to 
have exercised a different one ; but it is a conviction, a be 
lief, at most a knowledge, and not, properly, consciousness 
I am conscious of the conviction that I am free, and that I 
can do otherwise than as I do ; and this, in itself, is a pre- 
sumption, that I have such a power ; but I am not conscious 
of the power itself. It may be said, that if there were any 
restraint upon my will, to prevent my putting forth such 
volitions as I nlease, or to prevent my acting otherwise than 



FREEDOM 0£ THE WILL. 54] 

I do, I shovld he conscious of such restraint ; and this may 
be very true ; and from the absence oi any such conscious^ 
ness of restraint, I may justly infer that I am free ; but this, 
again, is an inference^ and not a consciousness. One thing, 
however, I am conscious of, that my actual volilicns are 
such, and only such, as I please to put forth ; and this leada 
to the conviction that it is in my power to put forth any vo- 
lition that I may please. 

Our moral Nature a Presumption in Favor of Freedom, 
— 2. It is a further presumption in favor of the entire free- 
dom of the Vvdll, that man's moral nature seems to imply it. 
We approve or condemn the conduct of others. It is with 
the understanding that they acted freely, *^nd could have 
done otherwise. We should never think of praising a man 
for doing wnat he could not help doing, or of blaming him 
for what it was utterly out of his power to avoid. So, also, 
we approve and condemn our own actions, and always with 
the understanding that these actions and volitions were free. 
There may be regret for that which was unavoidable, but 
never a sense of guilty never remorse. The existence of these 
feelings always implies freedom of the will, the power to 
nave done otherwise. Let any man select that period of his 
History, that act of his whole life, for which he blames himself 
most, and of which the recollection casts the deepest gloom 
and sadness over all his subsequent years,^ and let him ask 
himself why it is that he so blames himself for that course, 
and he will find, in every case, that it is because he knows 
that he might have done differently. Take away this con- 
viction, and you take away the foundation of all his remorse, 
and of self-condemnation. The same thing is implied, also, 
in the feeling of obligation. It is impossible to feel under 
moral obligation to do what it is utterly and absolutely out 
of our power to do. 

This View maintained hy Mr, Upham. -^ ^' There are 
Bome truths," says Mr. Upham, " which are so deeply based 
in the human constitution, that all men of all classes receive 



/ 



542 FREEDOM OF THE WILL 

them, and act upon them. They are planted deeply and 
immutably in the soul, and no reasoning, however plausible, 
can shake them. And, if we are not mistaken, the doctrine 
of the freedom of the will, as a condition of even the possi- 
bility of a moral nature, is one of these first truths. It seems 
to be regarded, by all persons, without any exception, as a 
dictate of common sense, and as a first principle of our na- 
ture, that men are morally accountable, and are the subjects 
of a moral responsibility in any respect, whatever, only so 
far as they possess freedom, both of the outward action, and 
of the will. They hold to this position, as an elementary 
truth, and would no sooner think of letting it go than of 
abandoning the conviction of their personal existence and 
identity. They do not profess to go into particulars, but 
they assert it in the mass, that man is a moral being only so 
far as he is free. And such a unanimous and decided 
testimony, bearing, as it absolutely does, the seal and super- 
scription of nature herself, is entitled • to serious considera- 
tion." 

Also hy Dr, Reid, — Dr. Reid, also, takes essentially the 
same view. He regards it as a first prjiciple, to be ranked 
in the same class with the conviction of our personal exist- 
ence and identity, and the existence of a material world, 
*' that we have some degree of power ever our actions, and 
the determinations of our will." It \n implied, he maintains, 
in every act of volition, in all deliberation, and in every 
resolution or purpose formed in consequence of deliberation 
" It is not more evident," he says, " that mankind have a 
conviction of the existence of a material world, than that 
they have the conviction of some degree of power in them- 
selves, and in others, every one over his own actions, and 
the determinations of his will — a conviction so early, so 
general, and so interwoven with the whole of human con 
duct, that it must be the natural effect of our constitution, 
and intended by the Author of our being to guida our ac 
tior.a." 



FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 543 

Conseqttences of the Opposite, — 3. The consequences of 
the opposite view afford a presumption in favor of freedom. 

If the will is not free, if all our liberty is merely a liberty 
to do what we will to do, or to execute the volitions which 
we form, but we have no poT\ er over the vohtions them- 
selves, then we have no power whatever to will or to act 
differently from what we do. This is fatalism. All that 
the fatalist maintains is, that we are governed by circum- 
Btances out of our own control, so that, situated as we are, it 
is impossible for us to act otherwise than as we do. From 
this follows, as a natural and inevitable consequence, the 
absence of all accountability and obligation. The founda- 
tion of these, as we have already seen, is freedom. Take 
this away, and you strike a fatal blow at man's moral nature. 
It is no longer possible for me to feel under obligation to do 
what I have absolutely no power to do, or to believe myself 
accountable for doing what I could not possibly avoid. 
Morality, duty, accountability, become mere chimeras, idle 
fancies of the brain, devices of the priest and the despot, to 
frighten men into obedience and subjection. 

This View sustained by Facts, — These are not random 
statements. It is a significant fact, that those who have un- 
dertaken to deny accountability, and moral obligation, have, 
almost without exception, I believe, been advocates of 
the doctrine of necessity. Indeed, it seems impossible to 
maintain such views upon any other ground ; while, on the 
other hand, the denial of the freedom of the will leads al- 
most of necessity to such conclusions. "Remorse," says Mr. 
Belsham, "is the exquisitely painful feeling which arises 
fi'om the belief that, in circumstances precisely the same, we 
might have chosen and acted differently. This fallacious 
feeling is superseded by the doctrine of necessity." 

Equally plain, and to the same effect, are the following 
passages from the correspondence of Diderol, as quoted by 
Mr. Stewart : " Examine it narrowlv, and you will see that 
the word iberty is a word devoid of meaning ; that there 



344 FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

are not, and that there cannot be, free beings ; that we are 
only what accords with the general order^ with our organi- 
sation, our education, and the chain of events. These dis- 
pose of us invincibly. We can no more conceive of a being 
acting without a motive, than we can of one of the arms of 
a balance acting without a weight. The motive is always 
exterior and foreign, fastened upon us by some cause dis- 
tinct from ourselves. * * * ^f^Q have been so often 
praised and blamed, and have so often praised and blamed 
others, that we contract an inveterate prejudice of believing 
that we and they will and act freely. But if there is no liberty, 
there is no action that merits either praise or blame ; neither 
vice nor virtue ; nothing that ought either to be rewarded 
or punished. * * * The doer of good is lucky, not 
virtuous. * * ^ Heproach others for nothing^ and 
repent of nothing ; this is the first step to wisdomP 

These Opinions not to be charged upon all Necessitarians^ 
— It is not to be supposed, of course, that all who deny the 
freedom of the will, adopt the views above expressed. 
Whether such denial, however, consistently followed out to 
its just and legitimate conclusions, does not lead to sucb 
results, is another question. 

4 

§ IL — The DmECT Argument. 

Another Mode of Argument. — Thus far we have ccn- 
sidered only the presumptions in favor of the freedom of 
the will. We find them numerous and strong. The ques- 
tion is, however, to be decided not by presumptions for or 
against, but by direct argument based upon a careful inquiry 
into the psychological facts of the case. To this let us now 
proceed, bearing in mind, as we advance, what are the es- 
Bential phenomena of the will, as already ascertained, and 
what is meant by freedom of the will as already defined. 

7%e Will free unless its appropriate Action is hindered. 
— It is evident that, if we are right in our ideas of what 



FREEDCM OF THE WILL. 545 

freedom is, the will is strictly and properly free, prov ded 
nothing interferes with, and prevents, our putting forth such 
volitions as we please and choose to put forth. The specific 
and appropriate action of the will, as we have seen^ is simply 
to put forth volitions. Whatever freedom it has, then, must 
lie within that sphere, and not without it, must relate to that^ 
find not to something else ; whatever restraint or want of 
fieedom it has, must also be found within these limits. My 
nill is free, when I can wUl to do just what I please. 

Strength of Inclination^ no Impediment. — If this be so, 
then it is clear, 1. That mere strength of inclination can by 
no means impair the freedom of the will. Be the inclination 
never so strong, it matters not. Nay, so far from interfering 
with freedom, it is an essential element of it. Freedom pre- 
supposes and implies inclination. One is surely none the 
less free because very strongly inchned to do as he likes, 
provided he can do what he wishes or prefers. This is as 
true of the action of the will as of any other action. 

The Source of Inclination^ of no Consequence to the pres- 
ertt Inquiry. — 2. It is evident, furthermore, that freedom 
has nothing to do with the source of my inclinations, any 
more than with their strength. It makes no difference what 
causes my preference, or whether any thing causes it. I 
have a preference, an inclination, a disposition to do a given 
thing, and put forth a given volition — am disposed to do 
It, and can do it — then I am free, my will is free.. It 
is of no consequence how I came by that inclination or 
di:^position. The simple question is. Am I at liberty to fol» 
low it ? 

The Interference mfast he from without^ and must affect 
the Choice. — It is evident, moreover, according to what 
has now been said, that if there be really any restraint upon 
the will, or lack of freedom in its movements, it must pro- 
ceed from something extraneous, outside the will itself, 
fciomething which comes in from without, and that in such a 
way as to interfe^^e^ in some way with m>y choice ; for it is 



546 FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

there that the element of freedom lies. But whatever inter- 
feres with my choice, interferes with my willing at ^11 ; the 
act is no longer a voluntary act. Choice is essential to 
volition, the very element of it. In order to an act of will 
as we have seen, there must be liberty to choose, delibera- 
tion, actual preference. Volition presupposes them, and is 
based on them. Whatever prevents them, prevents voli- 
tion. Whatever places me in such a state of mind that 1 
have no preference at all, no choice, as to any given thing, 
places me in such a state that I have also no volition as 
to that thing. The question of freedom is forestalled in 
such a case, becomes absurd. Where there is no volition, 
there is of course no freedom of volition, nor yet any want 
of freedom. Freedom of will is power to will as I like 
but now I have no liking, no preference. 

TJie Supposition varied, — But suppose now that I am 
not prevented from choosing, but only from carrying out my 
choice in actual volition ; from willing, according to my 
choice. Then, also, the act is no longer properly a volition^ 
an act of will, for one essential element of every such act, 
viz., choice^ is wanting. I have a choice, indeed, but it is 
not here, not represented in this so- called volition, lies in 
another direction, is, in fact, altogether opposed to this, my so* 
called volition. There can he no such volition. The human 
mind is a stranger to any such phenomenon, and if it did oc- 
cur, it would not be volition, not an act of the will, not a 
voluntary act. Whatever, then, comes in, either to prevent 
my choosing, or to prevent my exercising volition according 
to my choice, does, in fact, prevent my willing at all. If 
there he an act of the will, it is, in its very nature, a fret 
act, and cannot be otherwise. Allow me to choose, and to 
put forth volition according to my choice, and you leave me 
free. Prevent this, and you prevent my willing at ail. 

TJie Limitation^ as usually regarded^ not really one, - - 
Those who contend that the will is not ivee,, place the limit 
ation hack of the c>hoice. Choice is governed by inclina* 



FKEEDOM OF TH£ WILL. 547 

tion^ they say, and inclination depends on circumstances y 
on education, habits, fashion, etc., things, in great meas 
ure, beyond our control ^ and while these circumstances re- 
niain ths same, a man cannot choose otherwise than he does. 
To this I reply, that, as we have already seen, the will is 
stnctly and properly ^vqq^ provided nothing interferes with, 
and prevents, our putting forth such volitions as we choose 
to put forth. Is there, then, any thing in these circum' 
stances which are supposed to control our choice, and to be 
EC fatal to our freedom, is there in them any thing which 
really interferes with, or prevents our willing as we choose f 
Does the fact that I am inclined, and strongly so, to a given 
choice, prevent me from putting forth that choice in the 
shape of executive volition ? So far from this, that inclina- 
tion is the very circumstance that leads to my doing it. All 
that could possibly be contended, is that the supposed in- 
clination to a given choice is likely to prevent my having 
some other and different choice. But that has nothing to 
do with the question of the freedom of my will, which de- 
pends, as we have seen, not on the power to choose otherwise 
than one is inclined, or than one likes, but as he Ukes. 
What force, I ask again, is there in any circumstance, or 
combination of circumstances, which go to mould and shape 
my inclinations and my disposition, and have no further 
power over me, what force in them, or what tendency, to 
prevent my willing as I choose^ cts I like, as I am inclined ? 
Nay, if my will acts at all, it must, as I have shown, act in 
this way, and therefore act freely. 

Freedom of Inclination not Freedom of Will, — But sujv- 
pose I have no power to like^ or to be inclined, differently 
from what I do like, and am now inclined ? I reply, it matr- 
ters not as to the present question. The supposition now 
made, takes away or limits, not the freedom of the will, it 
does not touch that ; but the freedom of the affections. Can 
I like what I do not like— and can I put forth such volitiona 
as I please or choose — are two distinct questions, and again 



548 FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

I repeat that the freedom of our will depends, not on out 
having this or that particular choice, but on our being able 
to carry out whatever choice we do make into our volitions ; 
not on our being able to will otherwise than we choose, nor 
yet on our ability to choose otherwise than we do, but simply 
on our being able to will as we choose, whatever that choice 
may be. 

Are the Sensibilities Free, — Have I, in reality, however, 
any freedom of the affections, any power under given cir 
cwmstances^ to be affected otherwise than I am, to feel other- 
wise than I do ? I reply, the affections are not elements of 
the will, are not under it8 immediate control ; are not strictly 
voluntary. It depends on a great variety of circumstances, 
what, in any given case, your affections or inclinations may 
be. You have no power of will directly over them. You 
can modify and shape them, only by shaping your own vol' 
untary action so far as that bears upon their formation. Sy 
shaping your character which is under your control^ you 
may, in a manner, at least, determine the nature and degree 
of the emotions which will arise, under given circumstances, 
in your bosom. 

The two Questions entirely distinct, — But, however that 
may be, it has nothing to do, I repeat, with the question 
now unde? discussion. The freedom of the affections, and 
the freedom of the will, are by no means the same thing 
We have already seen that there may be a fixed and positi\e 
connection between my inclinations and my choice, and so 
my will, and yet my will be perfectly free. This is the main 
thing to be settled ; and there seems to be no need of fur- 
ther argument to establish this point ; and if this be so, 
decides the question as to the freedom of the will. 

JBearing of this View upon the divine Government, — 
The view now taken, leaves it open and quite in the power 
of Providence, so to shape circumstances, guide events, and 
so to array, and bring to bear on the mind of man, motives 
and inducements to any given course, as virtually to control 



CERTAIN QUESTIONS, ETC. 64M 

and determine his conduct, by controlling and determining 
his indmations^ and so his choice ; while, at the same time, 
the man is left perfectly free to put forth such volitions as 
he pleases, and to do as he likes. There can be no higher 
liberty than this. To this point I shall again revert, when 
the question comes up respecting the divine agency in cod- 
nection with human freedom. 



CHAPTER IV. 

CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING 

§ I. — Contrary Choice. 

The Question stated. — In the preceding chapters our at- 
tention has been directed to the psychological facts respect- 
ing the willj and also to the general question respecting the 
freedom of the will. Closely connected, with this main 
question, and involved in its discussion, are certain inquiries 
of a like nature, which cannot wholly be passed by, and for 
the consideration of which the way is now prepared. One 
of these respects the power of contrary choice. Have we 
any such power ^ Is the freedom, which, as wc have seen, 
belongs to the very nature of the will, such a freedom as 
•allows of our choosing, under given circumstances, any other- 
wise than we do ? When I put forth a volition, all other 
things being as they are, can I, at that moment, in place of 
that volition, put forth a different oi;e in its stead ? 

N'ot identical with the preceding, — This question is not 
identical with that respecting the freedom of the will, for it 
has been already shown that there may be true freedom 
without any such power as that now in question. My will 
is free, provided I can put forth such volitions a?a I please, 
irrespective of the power to substitute other voi.^ion?. ruit^ 
choices in place of the actual ones. 



560 CERTAIN QUESTIONS 

Such Power not likely to he exercised, —^hQ question^ 
however, is one of some importance, whether we have any 
Buch power or not. 4nd whether we have it or not, one 
thing is certain — we are not likely to exercise it. If among 
the fixed and given things, which are to remain as they are, 
we include whatever inclines or induces the mind to choose 
and act as it does, then, power or no power to the contrary, 
the choice will be as it is, and would be so, if we were to try 
the experiment a thousand times ; for choice depends on 
these preceding circumstances and inducements — the in- 
clmation of the mind — and if this is given, and made cer- 
tain, the choice to which it will lead becomes certain also. 
A choice opposed to the existing inclination, to the sum 
total of the existing inducements to action, is not a choice 
at all ; it is a contradiction in terms. The power of contrary 
choice, then, is one which, from the nature of the case, will 
never be put in requisition, unless something lying back of 
the choice, viz., inclination, be changed also. 

£ut does such Power exist. — The question is not, how- 
ever, whether such a power is likely to be employed, but 
whether it exists / not whether the choice will be thus and 
thus, but whether it ca7i be otherwise. When, from various 
courses of procedure, all practicable, and at my option, I 
select or choose one which, on the whole, I will pursue, have 
I no power ^ under those very circumstances, and at that very 
moment, to choose some other course instead of that ? Can 
my choice be otherwise than it is ? 

In what Sense there is such Power. — Abstractly, I sup- 
pose, it can. Power and inclination are two different things. 
The power to act is one thing, and the disposition to exert 
that power is another thing. Logically^ one does not in- 
volve the other. The power may exist without the disposi- 
tion^ or tlie disposition without the power. There is power ^ 
logically, abstractly considered, to choose, even when incli- 
nation is wanting ; you have only to supply the requisite in. 
clination, and the power is at once exerted, the choice is 



CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING 5r i 

made, the act is performed. But the change of inclination 
does not create any new power ^ it simply puts in requisition 
a power already existing. 

§ II. — Power to Do what we are not Disposed to Do. 

The Question under another Form, — Closely analogou s 
to the question last discussed, virtually, indeed, the same 
question under another form, is the inquiry, whether we can, 
at any moment, will or do what we are not, at that moment, 
hiclined to do. Have I any such power or freedom as this, 
that ZcAN do what I am not disposed or do not wish to 
do ? My disposition being to pursue a given course, is it 
really in mj poiver to pursue a different one ? 

In order to determine this question, let us see what con- 
stitutes, or in what consists, ike power of doing, in any case, 
what we are disposed to do ; and then we may be able to 
judge whether that power still exists, in case the disposition 
is wanting. 

J?i what Power consists, — It is admitted that I can do 
what I wish or am disposed to do. Now, in what consists 
that power ? That depends on what sort of act it is that I 
am to put forth. Suppose it be a physical act. My power 
to do what I wish, in that case, consists in my having certain 
physical organs capable of doing the given thing, and under 
the command of my will. Suppose it be an intellectual act. 
My power, in that case, of doing what I like, depends on my 
having such mental faculties as are requisite for the perform- 
ance of the given act, and these under control. So longj 
then, as I have the faculties, physical or mental, that are re- 
quisite to the performance of a given act, and those faculties 
are under the control of my will, so that I can exert them 
if I please, and when I please, so long my power of doing 
what I like is unimpaired, and complete, as, €. ^., the power 
of walkings or adding a column of accounts. 



552 CERTAIN QUESTIONS 

But suj^pose the Disposition v^anting. — Supp4)se, no w.^ 
*;he disposition to be wanting ; does the power also disap- 
pear, or does it remain ? I have the same faculties as be^ 
"ore, and they are as fully under the control of the will as 
ever, and that constitutes all the power I ever had. I have 
she power, then, of doing what I have no inclination to do. 
Whatever I can do if I like, that also I can do, even if I do 
not like. In itself considered, the power to do a thing may 
be quite complete, and independent of the inclination or dis- 
position to do or not to do. 

Will it he put in Requisition ? — But will this power be 
ever exercised ? Certainly not, so long as the disinclination 
continues. In order to the doing of any thing, there must 
aot only hepow^r to do it, but disp^osition. If the latter be 
wanting, the former, though it may exist, will never be put 
forth. 

Our Actions not consequently inevitable. — Have I, then, 
no power, that is really available, to do what I do not happen 
to be, at this moment, inclined to do ? Am I shut up to the 
actual inclinations and choices of any given hour or mo- 
ment, ? Am I under the stern rule of inevitable necessity 
and fate to do as I do, to choose as I choose, to be inclined 
as I am inclined ? By no means. My inclinations are not 
fixed quantities. They may change. They depend, in part, 
on the intellectual conceptions : these may vary ; in part 
on the state of the heart : divine grace may change the 
heart. 

Actual Choices not necessary ones, — The actual choice 
of any given moment is by no means a necessary one. An- 
other might have been in its stead. A different inclination 
is certainly possible and conceivable, and a different inclina- 
tion would have led to a different choice. If, instead of 
looking at the advantage or agreeableness of a proposed 
course, and being influenced by that consideration, I had 
looked at the right, the obligation in the case, my choice 
would have been a different one, for I should have been in- 



CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING. 653 

fluenced by a different motive. Two different objects wero 
presented to my mind, a and b. As it is, I choose a, bu^ 
might have chosen 5, and should^ had I been so incline J. 
Wliy did I choose a ? Because, as the matter then prc^ 
p^ented itself to my mind, I was so inclined. But I might have 
taken a different view of the whole thing, and then my r.- 
clination and my choice would have been different. It wns 
in my power to have thought, to have felt, to have acteJ 
differently. What is more, I not only mighty but, perha];^s, 
ought to have felt and acted differently. I am responsible 
for having such an inclination as leads to a wrong choice 
responsible for my opinions and view^s which influence my 
feelings ; responsible for my disposition, in so far as it is the 
result of causes within my o^tx control. 

Different Uses of the Term Power, — It ought to be 
clearly defined in all such discussions what we mean by the 
principal terms employed. In the present instance what we 
mean by the words power^ ability^ can^ etc., ought to be 
distinctly stated. Now, there are two senses in which these 
words are used, and the question before us turns, in part, on 
this difference. 

1. We may use the word power, e, g.^ to denote all that 
is requisite or essential to the actual doing of a thing, what- 
ever is so connected with the doing, that, if it be wanting, 
the thing will not be done. 

Or, 2. In a more limited sense, to denote merely all that 
is requisite to the doing the thing, provided we please or 
choose to do it, all that is requisite in order to our doing 
what we like or wish. 

The latter distinguishes between the ability and the will'- 
ingness to do ; the former includes them both in the idea of 
power. In order to the actual doing there must be both. 
But does the word power properly include both ? In ordi- 
nary language, certainly, we distinguish the two. I can do a 
thing, and I wish to do it, are distinct propositions, and 
neither includes the other. It is only by a license of speech 

24 



554 CERTAIN QUESllONS 

that we sometimes say I cannot^ when we mean simply, I 
have no wish or disposition. If we make the distinction \n 
question between power and disposition, then we can do 
what we have no wish to do. If we do not make it, but in- 
clude in the term power the disposition to exert the power, 
theD we cannot do what we have no disposition to do. 

§111. — Influence op Motives. 

I. Is THE Will always as the greatest apparen 
Good? 

The Answer depends on the 3feaning of the Question, — 
If by this be meant simply whether the mind always wills 
as it is, on the whole, and under all the circumstances, dis- 
posed or inclined to will, I have already answered the ques- 
tion. If more than that be meant, if we mean to ask 
whether we always, in volition, act with reference to the 
one consideration of advantage or utility, the good that is 
to accrue, in some way, to ourselves or others from the 
given procedure — and this is what the question seems to im- 
ply — I deny that this is so. I have ah'eady shown, in pre- 
senting the psychological facts respecting the will, that our 
motives of action are from two grand and diverse sources : 
desire and duty — self-love^ or, at most such love as in- 
volves mere natural emotion, and sense of obligation ; that 
we do not always act in view merely of the agreeable, bm 
also in view of the rights and that these two are not ideii- 
tical. Now the greatest apparent good is not always tht, 
right ; nor even the apparent right. We are conscious of 
the difference, and of acting, now from the one, now from 
the other, of these motives. But to say that the will is al- 
ways according to the greatest apparent good, is to resolve 
all volition into the pursuit of the agreeable, and all motives 
of action into self love. It is to merge the feeling of obli- 
gation in the feeling of desire, and lose sight of it as in i^ 
self a distinct motive of action. 



CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING. 555 

Defect in the Socratic Philosophy, — This was the capital 
defect in the ethical system of Socrates, who held that men 
always pursue what they think to be good, and, therefore, 
always do what they think is right, since the good and the 
right are identical ; sometimes, indeed, mistaking an apparent 
good for a real one, but always doing as well as they know 
how ; from which it is but a short step to the conclusion that 
6in is only so much ignorance, and virtue so much knowl 
edge — a conclusion to which the modern advocates of the 
doctrines under discussion would by no means asseat, but 
from which that shrewd thinker and most consistent logician 
saw no escape. 

n. Is THE Will determined by the stroin'gest Motiye ? 

The Term " strongest " as thus employed, — Much depends 
on what we mean by "strongest" in this connection, and what 
by the word " determined ? " If we mean, by the strongest 
motive, the one which in a given case prevails, that in view 
of which the mind decides and acts, then the question amounts 
merely to this, Does the prevalent motive actually prevail f 
To say that it does, is much the same as to say, that a 
straight stick is a straight stick. And wl at else can you 
mean by strongest motive ? What standard have you for 
measuring motives and guaging their strength, except simply 
to judge of them by the effects they produce ? Or, who 
ever supposed that, of two motives, it was not the stronger 
but the weaker one that in a given case prevailed ? 

The Word " determ.ined?'' — The question may be made, 
however, to turn upon the word determined. Is the will 
determined by that motive which prevails ? Is it determ,ined 
at all by any motive or by any thing ? If by this word it 
be meant or implied that the motive, and not the mind itselt^ 
IS the producing cause of the mind's own action, then I deny 
that the will is^ in any such sense^ determined, whether by 
the strongest motive, or any other. The will is simply the 
mind or the soul willing ; its acts are determined by itself 



556 CERTAIN QUESTIOJSS 

and itself only. If you mean simply that the mctive infiw' 
ences the will, prevails with it, becomes the reason why the 
will decides as it does, this I have ah*eady shown to be true, 
and in this sense, undoubtedly, the motive determines the 
volition, just as the fall of an apple from a tree is, in the first 
instance, produced or caused by the law of gravitation ; but 
the particular direction which it takes in falling, depends cii, 
and is determined by, adventitious circumstances as, e. g,^ tne 
obstacles it meets in its descent. Those obstacles, in one 
eense, determine the motion ; they are the reason and ex- 
planation of the fact that it falls just as it does, and not 
^ otherwise ; but they are not the producing cause of the 
motion itself. 

III. Ake Motives the Cause, and Volitions the 
Effect ? 

Incorrect Use of the Term Cause. — It is common, with a 
certain class of writers, to speak of motive as the cause of 
action or volition. This is, if at all correct and allowable, 
certainly not a fortunate use of terms. The agent is prop- 
erly the cause of any act, and in volition the soul itself is 
the agent. It is the mind itself, which is, strictly, the effi- 
cient cause of its own acts. The motive is the reason why I 
act, and not the producer or cause of my act. In common 
speech, this distinction is not always observed. We say, I 
do such a thing because of this or that, meaning for such 
and such reasons. In philosophical discussion it is necessary 
to be more exact. 

Idable to he misunderstood, — The use of the word, M 
now referred to, is particularly to be avoided as liable to mift« 
lead the incautious reader or hearer. It suggests the idei 
of physical necessity, of irresistibility. Given, the law ot 
gravitation, e, g.^ and a body unsupported m^ust fall — no 
choice, no volition ; whereas, the action of the mind in voli- 
tion is, by its essential nature, voluntary^ directly opposed to 
the idea of compulsion. Those w^ho use the word in thia 



CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING. 55/ 

manner are generally careful to disclaim, it is true, any such 
8ense ; but such are our associations with the word cause^ as 
ordinarily employed, that it is difficult to avoid sliding, un- 
awares, into thu old and familiar idea of some sort of abso- 
lute physical necessity. It were better to say, therefore, that 
motives are the reasons why we act thus and thus. To go 
farther than this, to call the motive the cause of the volition, 
is neither a correct nor a fortunate use of terms, since tho 
idea is thereby conveyed, guard against it as you will, that, 
in some way, the influence was irresistible, the event un- 
avoidable. 

The Phrase " moral Necessity P — The same objections 
lie with still greater force against the phrase moral necessity 
as applied to this subject. Those who use it are careful, for 
the most part, to define their meaning, to explain that they 
do not mean necessity at all, but only the certainty of actions. 
The word itself, however, is constantly contradicting all such 
explanations, constantly suggesting another and much stronger 
meaning. That is necessary, properly speaking, which de- 
pends not on my will or pleasure, which cannot be avoided, 
but must be, and must be as it is. Now, to say of an act of 
the will, that it is necessary, in this sense, is little short of a 
contradiction in terms. The two ideas are utterly incongru- 
ous and incompatible. 

A volition may be certain to take place ; it may be the 
motive that makes it certain, but if this is all we mean, it is 
better to say just this, and no more. If this is all we mean, 
then we do not mean that volitions are necessary in any 
proper sense of that term. There is no need to use the 
word necessity, and then explain that we do not mean neces- 
sity, but only certainty. It is precisely on this unfortunate 
use of terms that the strongest objections are founded, 
against the true doctrine of the connection of motive with 
volition. Even Mill, one of the ablest modern necessitari- 
ans, objects to the use of this term, and urges its abandon' 
vient. 



558 CERTAIN QUESTIONS 

Tlie true Connection, — "What,, then^ is the co.inection bo 
tween Motive and Volition ? — I have all along admitted, 
that there is such a connection between volitions and mo- 
tives, that the former never occur without the latter, that 
they stand related as antecedent and consequent, and that 
motives, while not the producing cause of volitions, are still 
the reason why the volitions are as they are, and not other- 
wise. They furnish the occasion of their existence, and the 
explanation of their character. So much as this, the psy 
chology of the subject warrants — -more than this it does not 
allow. More than this we seem to assert, however, when 
we insist on saying that motive is the cause, and volition the 
effect. We seem, however we may disclaim such intention, 
to make the mind a mere mechanical instrument, putting 
forth volitions only as it is impelled by motives, these, and 
not the mind, being the real producing cause, and the voli- 
tions following irresistibly, just as the knife or chisel is but 
the passive instrument in the hand of the architect, and not 
at all the producing cause of the effects which follow. 

Difference of the two Cases, — Now there is a vast differ, 
snce between these two cases. The impulse, communicated 
zo the saw, produces the effect irresistibly ; not so the mo- 
tive. The saw is a passive instrument ; not so the mind. 
There is, in either case, a fixed connection between the an- 
tecedent and the consequent, but the nature of the connec- 
tion is widely different, and it is a difference oi the greatest 
moment. It is precisely the difference indicated by the two 
words cause 2indi reason — as applied to account for a given 
occurrence — the one applicable to material and mechanical 
powers and processes, the other to intelligent, rational, volun- 
tary agents. There is a cause why the apple falls. It is 
gravitation. There is a reason why mind acts and wills as 
it does. It is motive. 

But IS the Mind the producing Cause of its own Volitions ? 
— This, the advocates of moral necessity deny. " If we 
«Jiould thus cause a volition," saj s Dr. Edwards, " we should 



CONNECTED WITH THE PRECEDING. 669 

doubtless cause it by a causal act. It is impossible that we 
cause any thing without a causal act. And as it is supposed 
that we cause it freely, the causal act must be a free act, ^. 6., 
an act of the will, or volition. And as the supposition is, 
that all our volitions are caused by ourselves, the causal act 
must be caused by another, and so on infinitely, which ia 
both impossible and inconceivable." That is, if the mind 
oauses its own volitions, it can do it only by first acting to 
cause them, and that causative act is, itself, a volition, and 
requires another causative act to produce it, and so on ad 
infinitum. 

The Dictum Necessitatis proves too much. — This cele- 
brated argument has been called, not inapposltely, the 
dictum necessitatis. It rests upon the assumption, that no 
cause can act, but by first acting to produce that act. Now 
this virtually shuts out all cause from the universe, or else 
involves Us in the infinite series. Apply this reasoning- to 
any cause whatever, and see if it be not so. Suppose, e. g.^ 
that motive^ and not the mind itself, is the producing cause 
of volition. Then, according to the dictum, motive cannot 
act, but by first acting in order to act, and for that previous 
causative act, there must have been an ulterior cause, and 
so on forever, in an endless succession of previous causative 
acts. 

The Dictum as applicable to Mind. — But it may be said 
this dictum applies only to mind, or voluntary action. How, 
then, is it known, that mind cannot act without first acting 
4n order to act? Would not this virtually shut out and ex- 
tinguish all mental action ? The mind thinks ; must it first 
think, in order to think? It reasons, judges, conceives, im- 
agines ; must it first reason, judge, etc., in order to reason, 
and judge, and conceive, and imagine ? If not, then why 
ma}^ it not ivill without first willing to will ? 

The Dictum as applicable to Deity. — If mind is not the 
cau-se of its own volitions, then how is it with the volitions 
of the infinite and eternal mind ? Are they caused or un- 



560 THE WILL VIEWED 

caused ? If caused, then by what ? If l)j himself, then 
there is again the infinitely recurring series according to the 
dictum. If by something else, still we do not escape the 
series, for each causative act must have its prior cause. Are 
the volitions of Deity, then, uncaused? Then certainly 
there is no such thing as cause in the universe. Motives, 
then, are no longer to be called causes. Deity is not, in 
&ct, the cause of any thing, since not the cause of those 
volitions by which alone all things are produced. If he is 
not the cause of these, then not the cause of their conse- 
quences and effects. In either case, you shut out all cause 
from the universe, whether the dictum be appUed to mind 
or to motion, to man or to God ; or else you are, in either 
case, involved in the vortex of this terrible infinitive series. 

To give up the dictum, is to admit that mind may be the 
producing cause of its own volitions. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE WILL VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH 
CERTAIN TRUTHS OF RELIGION. 

The Relation of Psychology to Theology. — The very close 
connection between the philosophy of the will, and the science 
of theology, has already been remarked. We have discussed 
the questions which have come before us thus far, on purely 
psychological grounds, without reference to their theological 
bearing. It would be manifest injustice to the matter in 
hand, however, were we to overlook entirely the relation of 
our philosophy to those higher truths which pertain to the 
domain of theological science. 

The whole question respecting the freedom of the human 
will, especially, assumes a new importance, when viewed ia 
connection with the truths of natural and revealed religioa 



IN CONNECTION WITH RELIGION. 561 

It ceases to be a speculative, and becomes an emiaently prac- 
tical question when thus viewed. 

There are two points which require special attention, aa 
regards that connection ; the one, Go(Ps power over mat. , 
the other, man's power over himself* 

§ L — The Power which God Exerts over the Human Mnn> 

AND Will. 

Dependence of Man, — It seems to be the teaching ot 
reason, no less than of religion, that man stands to th^ 
Creator in the relation of absolute dependence. The one is 
the subject, the other the sovereign. The control of Deity 
extends, not merely to the elements and forces of nature, 
which are by no means the chief and most important part of 
his works, but over all intelligent, rational beings. This is 
implied, not only in the fact that he is the Creator of 
all, but in the fact of moral government, and of a super- 
intending providence. Manifestly, there could be no such 
thing as moral government, and no control over the af- 
fairs of the world, if the conduct of men, the minds and 
hearts of intelligent beings, were not subject to that control. 
This is not only the inference which reason draws from the 
acknowledged supremacy of the Creator, it is not only thus 
a tenet of natural religion, but it is also one of the plainest 
doctrines of revealed truth. In the most exiDlicit and direct 
terms, the Scriptures ascribe to God the supreme control 
of human conduct, of the human mind and heart. This 
power over the thoughts and purposes of intelligent beings 
is the very highest power. 

This Control unlimited, — This control, moreover, in 
order to be complete and effective, must reach beyond 
the present and passing moment, must take in the future, 
must sweep through the whole range of coming duration, 
and comprehend whatever is to be. Nothing must take 
place wit ho a^. his foreknowledge and pe;*mission. The mi 

24^ 



562 THE WILL VIEWED 

nutest events, the falling of a sparrow, tlie number of the 
forest leaves, and of the hairs of our head, must be no ex- 
ception to this general law. 

Implies a Plan^ and that Plan embraces hum^an Con- 
duct, — - If we suppose the supreme Being to be, not only a 
Creator and Ruler, but a wise and intelligent one, then we 
must suppose him to have some plan of operations. The 
very idea oi providence^ indeed, implies this. And this plan 
must be supposed to extend to, and include, future events, 
all events, minute events ; for the little and the great are 
linked together, the future and the present are linked to- 
gether, and the plan and government that has to do with 
one, must have to do with all, and with human conduct 
among the rest. This, again, is not more clearly the doc- 
trine of reason than of revelation. 

The Difficulty stated, — Whatever freedom man has, then, 
it must be such a freedom as is consistent with God's com- 
plete control and government of him. Neither his present 
nor his future conduct, neither his thoughts, his feelings, nor 
his purposes, must be beyond the reach of the divine purpose 
and control. But how are these things to be reconciled — 
man's entire freedom, God's entire control and government 
of him ? _ 

Different Positions assumed. — Both are facts, and, there- 
fore, true. Either, by itself, can be well enough conceived 
and comprehended, but, taken together, they appear incon- 
sistent. Many do not hesitate to pronounce them so. 
Some, who accept them both as true, legard them as still in- 
explicable and incomprehensible. Others receive one and 
reject the other, or, at least, assume such a position as 
amounts to a virtual rejection of one of these truths. Thus 
the fatalist secures the supreme government of God, only at 
the expense of human freedom, and thus weakens, if not 
destroys, the foundation of human accountability. Others 
again, in their horror of fatalism, preserve the freedom and 
accountability of man, at the exper^se of the divine go\ env 



IN CONNECTION WITH RELIGION. 553 

ment and purposes, thus virtually placing man beyond the 
power and control of Deity. 

Application of the preceding Psychology to this Ques 
tlon. — How, then, are these two great facts to be recon- 
ciled ? . If we mistake not, a true psychology, a correct 
view of the nature of the will, prepares the way for thia. 
What have we found to be the process of the mind in voli- 
tion ? The several steps of the process are found to be 
these : In the first place, some object to be accomplished is 
pres(inted, as such, to the understanding. This object, thus 
presented, appealing to the desires or to the sense of duty 
influences or inclines the mind. This, again, leads to choice 
choice to volition, volition to action. 

Freedom lies where, — Now in this whole process, where 
does the element of freedom lie ? Not in the final exec- 
utive act — the doing as we will to do — for that is merely a 
bodily function, a physical and not a mental power ; nor yet 
in the control of the motives which influence or incline us ; 
for thene are, for the most part, out of our power. Evi- 
dently tr^^edom, so far as it pertains to the human will, lies 
in the power of forming and putting forth such volitions as 
we please, in other words, of choosing as we like, and will- 
ing as we choose, so that whatever our inclinations may be, 
we shall be at liberty to choose and to will accordingly. 
This is the highest practical freedom of which it is possible 
to conceive, and it is all the freedom which pertains to the 
human will. 

TIow this may consist with the divine Control. — Let U8 
ee, now, if this be not a liberty perfectly compatible with 
the divine government and control over us. These volitions 
ar d choices of ours are by no means arbitrary or casual ; 
there is a reason for them ; a reason why we choose as we 
do. We choose thus and thus, because we are, on the whole, 
BO disposed 01 inclined / and this inclination or disposition 
depends on a great variety of circumstances, on the nature 
and strength of th^, motive presented, our physical and 



564 THE WILL VIEWED 

mental constitation and habits, our power of self-control, 
the strength of our desires, as compared with our sense of 
duty, the presence or absence of the exciting object; in fine, 
on a great variety of predisposing causes and circumstances, 
all of which are to be taken into the account, when the ques- 
tion is, why do we choose thus, and not otherwise ? Now, 
these circumstances which go to determine our inclinations, 
and so our choices and voUtions, are, in a great measure, be 
yond our direct control. Our physical and mental constitu 
tion, our external condition, our state of mind, and circum 
stances at any given moment, whatever in the shape of 
motive or inducement may be present with moving powei 
to the mind, inclining us this way or that, all this lies much 
more under divine control than under our own. 

The Point of Connection, — Here, then, to speak rever- 
ently, lies the avenue of approach, through which Deity 
may come in and take possession of the human mind, and 
influence and shape its action, without infringing, in the 
least, on its perfect freedom. He has only to present such 
motives as shall seem to the mind weighty and sufficient, 
has only to toucn the main-spring of human inclination, ly- 
ing back of actual choice, has only to secure within us a 
disposition or liking to any given course, and our choice fol- 
lows with certainty, and our volition, and our action ; and 
that action and volition are^ree in the highest sense, because 
our choice was free. We acted just as we pleased, just as 
we were inclined. 

The Influence of Man over his fellow Men an Illustration 
of the same Principle, — Now this is just what we, in a 
limited way, and to a small extent, are c(»nstantly domg 
with respect to our fellow men. We present motives, in- 
ducements, to a given course, we work upon their inclina 
lions, we appeal to their sensibilities, their natural desires, 
their sense of duty, and in proportion as we gain access to 
their hearts, we are successful in shaping and controlling 
their conduct. Th^ great and diffcult art of governing 



IN CONNECTION WITH KE LAG I ON 563 

men lies in this. We have only to suppose a like power, 
but complete and perfect, to be exercised by the supreme 
disposer and controller of events, so shaping and ordering 
circumstances as to determine the inclinations of men, gain- 
ing access, not in an uncertain and indirect manner, but by 
immediate approach to the human heart, all whose springs 
Ee under his control, so* that he can touch and command 
them as he will; we have only to conceive this, and we 
have, as it seems to me, a full and sufficient explanation of 
the fact that man acts freely, and just as he is inclined, while 
yet he is perfectly under the divine control. 

Power which the iScriptures ascribe to God, — And this, 
if I mistake not, is precisely the sort of control and power 
over man which the Scriptures always ascribe to God, viz., 
power over the inclinations, affections, dispositions, from 
which proceed all our voluntary actions. In his hand are 
the hearts of men, and he can turn them as the rivers ot 
water are turned. 

The Theory does not suppose a divine Influence to JSviL 
— It is not necessary to suppose that God ever influences 
men to evil ; the supposition is inconsistent with the divine 
character, with all we know and conceive of Deity. Nor is 
any such influence over man necessary in order to the ac- 
complishment of evil, but, on the contrary, much is needed 
to restrain and prevent him from sin. Sufficient already are 
the motives and influences that incline him to go astray ; 
feeble and inefficient, the inducements to a better life. Could 
we suppose, however, any influence of this sort to be exerted 
over man, inclining him to evil, we can still see how such 
influence might be perfectly consistent wdth his entire free- 
dom. It is not the integrity of human freedom, but the in- 
tegrity of the divine character, that forbids such a sup- 
position. 

I>oes not interfere with Responsihility , — Does such a 
pow^r over human conduct, as that now attributed to the 
«upreme Being, interfere with liuman responsibility ? Not 



{,66 THE WILL VIEWED 

in the least. Responsibility rests with him who acts Ireely 
and as he pleases, doing that which is right or wrong, of his 
own accord, knowing what he does, and because he has a 
mind to do it. And it is thus man acts, under whatever 
dep;ree of divine influence we may suppose him placed, 

§ n. — Man's Power over Himself. 

Unjust to require what it is impossible to perform. — 
Have I power, in all cases, to do what the divine will re- 
quires ; power to do right ? It would seem to be the ver 
diet of reason, and the common sense of mankind, that to 
require of any man what is literally and absolutely beyond 
his power, is unjust, and that such a requirement, if it were 
made, would impose no obligation, since obedience would 
be impossible. We cannot suppose God to be guilty of such 
manifest injustice. His commands are right. They carry 
with them the judgment and reason of men. Conscience 
approves them. Obligation attends them. They must, there- 
fore, be such commands as it is possible for us to obey. It 
would be manifest injustice and wrong to require of me 
what it is actually and absolutely out of my power to do. 

Supposed Disinclination. — But suppose I have really no 
inclination, no disposition, to do right. My affections and 
desires are all wrong, inclining me to evil, and my sense of 
duty or moral obligation is not strong enough to prevail 
against these natural desires and evil inclinations ; suppose 
this, which, alas ! is too often true, and what then becomes 
of my power to do right ? Does it any longer exist ? Have 
I any power to change those affections and inclinations ; or, 
they remaining as they are, have I any power to go con- 
trary to them ? A question this, at once profoundly philo 
sophical, and intensely practical. 

Position of the Fatalist. — The fatalist has no hesitatioD 
In replying no, to these questions. Man has no power to 
change the current of his own inclinations, nor yet to go 



I 



IN CONNECTION WITH RELIGION. 567 

against that current. He is wholly under the influence of 

motives ; they turn him this way and that. He has power 

to do as he wills, but no power over the volitions themselves. 

He has power to do only what he has a mind to do. He 

has no mind, no inclination to do right, therefore, no power 

to do so. 

7^is Position at Variance with a tirue Psychology, — A 

correct psychology, as we have already seen, gives a differ- 
ent answer. It is not true, as a matter of fact in the philos 
ophy of the human mind, that man has no poioer to do what 
he has no disposition to do ; nor is it true that his inclina- 
tions and affections are wholly out of his power and control. 
In both respects, fatalism is at war, not more with the com- 
mon sense of mankind, than with a sound and true philosophy. 

Confounds Power with Inclination, — To say that man 
bas no power to do what he is not inclined to do, is to con- 
found power with inclination. They are distinct things. 
The one may exist without the other. I have power to do 
what I have no disposition to do ; on the other hand, I may 
have the disposition to do what is not in my power. I have 
power CO set fire to my own house, or to my neighbor's, or 
to cut off my right hand ; power, but no disposition. Pre- 
sent a motive sufficiently weighty to change my mind, and 
mcline me to the act, and you create, in that way, a new 
disposition, but no new power. This point has been fully 
discussed in the previous chapter, and I need not here 
repeat the argument. It was shown that in order to the 
actual doing of a thing, two things are requisite, namely, 
the power to do, and the inchnation to exert that power; 
and that neither involves the other. Where the power 
alone exists, the thing can be done, but will not he ; where 
both exist, it both can and will be done. It is not true, 
then, in any proper use of terms, that want of inclination is 
want of power. 

Our Inclinations not wholly hey o id our Control, — 
Equally incorrect is the position that our im^Ainationa and 



568 THE WILL VIEWED, ETC. 

affections are wholly out of our own control. Within cer 
tain limits it is in our power to change them. Inclination is 
not a fixed quantity. It may change. It ought to change. 
In many respects it is constantly changing. We take dit 
ferent views of things, and so our feelings and inclinations 
change. Circumstances change^ the course of events changes; 
and our disposition is modified accordingly. So that while 
the affections and inclinations are certainly not under the 
direct and immediate control of the will, it is still, in a great 
measure, in our power to modify and control them. While 
they remain as they are, it is quite certain that we shall do 
as we do ; but it is not necessary that they should^ nor cer- 
tain that they will^ remain as they are. 

Hie true Answer. — To the question, then, can the man 
whose inclinations are to evil, whose heart is wrong, do 
right ? a true psychology answers yes. He can do what he 
is not inclined to do ; nor is that evil inclination itself a fixed 
quantity ; he can be, he may be, otherwise inclined. 

Something else needed beside Power, — It must be admit- 
ted, however, that so long as the heart is wrong, so long as 
the evil disposition continues, so long the man will continue 
to do evil, notwithstanding all his power to the contrary. 
Left to himself, there is very little probability of his effecting 
any material change in himself for the better. In order to 
this, there is needed an influence from without, and from 
above ; an influence that shall hicline him to obedience, thiit 
shall make him willing to obey. 

TTie Gospel meets this Necessity, — This is precisely the 
want of his nature which divine grace meets. It creates 
within him a clean hearty and renews within him a right 
spirit. This is the sublime mystery of regeneration. The 
soul that is thus born of God is made willing to do right. 
The inclinations are no longer to evil, but to good, and the 
man still doing that which he pleases, is pleased to do the 
will of God. The change is in the disposition; it is a change 
of the affections, of the heart : thus the Scriptures ah\ ays 



POWER OF WIi^l,. 555 

represent it. This was all that was wanted to secure obe- 
dience, and this divine grace supplies. 

It is not our province to discuss theological questions, as 
fiuch. It has been our aim, simply, to show the relation of a 
true psychology to the system of truth revealed in the Scrip- 
tures, The perfect coincidence of the two is an argument in 
fa7or of each. 



CHAPTER VI. 

POWER OF WILL, 

Differences in this respect, — There are great diffeionces 
among men, as regards the strength and energy of this, aa 
compared with the other departments of mental activity. 
The difference is, perhaps, as great in this respect, as in re- 
gard to the other mental faculties. Not all are gifted with 
equal power of imagination, not all with equal strength ol 
memory, or of the reasoning faculty; not all with equal 
strength of the executive power of the mind. Some persons 
exhibit a weakness of will, a want of decision and firmness, 
an irresolution of character and purpose. They waver and 
hesitate in cases of doubt and emergency, requiring decision 
and energy. They are governed by no fixed purpose. The 
course which they adopt to-day, they abandon to-morrow 
fcr the opposite. They are controlled by circumstances. 
Opposition turns them from their course, difficulties dis- 
courage them. They are easily persuaded, easily led ; ill 
fitted to be themselves leaders of men. 

Others, again, are firm and inflexible as a rock. They 
choose their course, and pursue it, regardless of difficulties 
and consequences. Difficulties only arouse them to new 
effort. Opposition only strengthens their decision and pur- 
pose. They are hard to be persuaded, when once theii 



570 POWER OF WILL. 

minds are made up, and harder still to be driven. They 
take their stand, nothing daunted by opposing numbers, 
and, with Fitz-James, when suddenly confronted and sur- 
rounded by the hosts of Roderic Dhu, exclaim, 

" Come one, come all, this rock shall fly 
From its firm base, as soon as /." 

Instances of Firmness, — Napoleon, fiery and impetuous 
as he was, possessed this energy and strength of will. 
Obstacles, difficulties, insurmountable to other men, estab- 
lished usages, institutions, armies, thrones, all were swept 
away before the irresistible energy of that mighty will, and 
that determined purpose, as the wave, driven before the 
storm, clears itself a path among the pebbles and shells that 
lie strewn upon the shore. In the character of his brother 
Joseph, King of Spain, we have an example of the opposite. 
Mild, cultivated, refined, amiable, of elegant tastes, a man 
of letters, loving retirement and leisure, he was lacking in 
that energy and decision of character which fit men for 
command in camps and courts. We have in the firm and 
terrible energy of Cromwell, as contrasted with the mild- 
ness and inefficiency of his son and successor Richard, the 
same diffisrence illustrated. The Puritan leaders of the 
English Revolution were men of stern and determined 
energy of character. Among the Romans, Caesar presents 
a notable example of that strength of will which fits men 
for great enterprises ; while the great Roman orator, with 
all his acquisitions of varied learning, and all his philosophy, 
and all his eloquence, was deficient in firmness of purpose. 

Often exhibited in 'inilitary Leaders, — In general it may 
be remarked that great military commanders have usually 
been distinguished for this trait of character. It was by 
virtue of their energy, and decision, and firmness of pur 
pose, that they accomplished what they did, succeeding 
where other men would have failed. Thus it was with Han- 
Qibal, \^ith Frederic the Great^ with Wellington, with our 



POWER OF WILL. 571 

OM^n "Washington. Tbey "\'ere, by nature, endowed with 
those qualities which fittv ^ them for their important and 
difficult stations ; while, at the same time, the work to which 
they were called, and the circumstances in which they were 
placed, tended greatly to develop and strengthen those pecu- 
liar traits and qualities, and this among the rest. 

The same Trait exhibited in other Stations of Life. — ' 
Strength of will shows itself, however, in other relations and 
stations of life, as well as in the military commander. The 
leader of a great political party, as, for example, of the Ad- 
ministration, or of the Opposition, in the English Parliament, 
has abundant occasion for firmness and strength of purpose. 
It was not less strength of will, than of moral principle, in 
Socrates, that led him resolutely to withstand the popular 
clamor, and the opinions of his associate judges, and refuse 
to sentence the unsuccessful military commanders, on the 
day when the decision lay in his hands ; the same trait 
showed itself in that retreat after the battle of Delius, so 
graphically described by Plato, when he walked alone and 
slowly from the field, where all was confusion and flight, 
with such coolness and such an air of calm self-reliance, that 
no enemy ventured to approach him ; it was shown not less 
in his determined refusal to escape from prison, and the un- 
just sentence of death, notwithstanding all the entreaties 
and remonstrances of friends. 

Strength of Will in the Orator, — The truly great orator, 
rising to repel the assaults of his antagonist, or to allay the 
prejudices and take command of the passions and opinions 
of a popular assembly, calm and collected, and conscious of 
his strength, master of his own emotions, and of all his 
powers, presents an illustration of the same principle. It 
was seen in Webster, when he rose in the Senate to reply to 
Hayne. The very aspect of the man conveyed to all be- 
holders the idea of power — a strength, not merely of 
gigantic intellect, but of resolute will, determined to coa 
quer 



672 POWER OF WILLe 

Strength of Will as shown in the Endurance of Suffer^ 
ing, — The same principle is sometimes manifested in a dif- 
ferent manner, and in different circumstances. If it leads to 
heroic actions^ it leads also to heroic endurance and suffer- 
ing. It was the firm and stubborn will of Regulus, that sent 
him back to Carthage, to endure all that the disappointed 
im\lice of his foes could invent. It was the firm will of 
Jerome of Prague, that kept him from recantation in the 
face of death ; the firm will of Cranmer, that thrust his right 
hand into the flames, and kept it there till it was quite con- 
sumed. A like firmness of purpose has been exhibited in 
thousands of instances, both in the earlier and later annals 
of Christian martyrdom. Rather than renounce a principle, 
or abandon the deeply-cherished convictions of the soul, na* 
tures, the most frail and feeble, have calmly met and endured 
the greatest sufferings, with a firmness, and courage, and 
power of endurance, that nothing could shake or overcome. 

JE[ow to be attained, — To multiply instances is needless. 
But how shall this strength of will, so desirable, so essential 
to true greatness and nobleness of character, be attained ? 

In part it is the gift of nature, doubtless — the result of 
that physical and mental constitution with which some are 
more fortunately endowed ; in part it is an acquisition to be 
made, as any other mental or physical acquisition, by due 
care and training. It will be of service, especially, in any 
endeavor of this sort, to accustom ourselves to decide irith 
promptness, and act wdth energy in the many smaller and 
less important affairs of life, and to carry out a purpose, 
once deliberately formed, with persistence, even in trivial 
matters. The habit thus formed, we may be able afterward, 
and gradually, to carry into higher departments of action, 
and into circumstances of greater embarrassment and dif- 
ficulty. On the other hand, this must not be carried to the 
extreme of obstinacy^ which is the refusal to correct a mis- 
take^ or acknowledge an error, or listen to the wiser and 
better couiisels of others. 



CHAPTER VII. 

HISTOEICi^L SKETCH. — OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY 
RESPECTING FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

Question early Discussed. — The question respecting b'l 
nan freedom, was very early a topic of inquiry and discus- 
sion. It enters prominently into the philosophy of all 
nations, so far as we know, among whom either philosophy 
or theology have found a place. It is by no means confined 
to Christian, or even to cultivated nations. It holds a prom- 
inent place in the theological systems and disputes of India 
and the East, at the present day. The missionary of the 
Christian faith meets with it, to his surprise, perhaps, in the 
remotest regions, and among tribes little cultivated. It is a 
question, at once so profound, and yet of such personal aijd 
practical moment, that it can hardly have escaped the atten- 
tion of any thoughtful and reflecting mind, in any country, 
or in any age of the world. 

TJie Greek Philosophy, — Among the Greeks, conflicting 
opinions respecting this matter prevailed in the difierent 
schools. The Epicitreans^ although asserting human liberty 
in opposition to the doctrine of universal and inexorable 
fate^ were, nevertheless, necessitarians^ if we may judge 
from the writings of Lucretius, whose idea of liberty, as Mr, 
Stewart has well shown, is compatible with the most perfect 
necessity, and renders man " as completely a piece of passiyg 
mechanism as he was supposed to be by Collins and Hobbes." 
This liberty is, itself, the necessary effect of some cause^ and 
the reason assigned for this view is precisely that given by 
modem advocates of necessity, namely, that to suppose other- 
wise, is to suppose an effect without a cause. 

On tho other hand, the Stoics^ while maintaininsj the doo 



574 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

trine ol/ate^ held, nevertheless, to the utmost liberty of the 
will. With the consistency of these views, we are not now 
concerned. Epictetus is referred to by Mr. Stewart, as an 
example of this not unusual combination of fatalism and free- 
will. 

The Jewish Sects.- — Yery similar was the relation of the 
two rival sects among the Jews, the Sadducees and tne 
Pharisees, the former holding the doctrine of human freedom, 
the latter of such a degree, at least, of fatality, as is incon- 
eistent with true liberty. 

The Arabian Schools. — Among no people, perhaps, has 
this question been more eagerly and widely discussed, than 
by the Arabians, whose philosophy seems to have grown out 
of their theology. When that remarkable book, the Koran, 
first aroused the impulsive mind of the Arab from his idle 
dreams, and startled him into consciousness of higher truth, 
the very first topic of inquiry and speculation about which 
his philosophic thought employed itself, seems to have been 
this long-standing question of human ability and the freedom 
of the will. The Koran taught the doctrine of necessity and 
fate. A sect soon arose, called Kadrites., from the word 
hadr^ power, freedom, holding the opposite doctrine, that 
man's actions, good and bad, are under the control of hia 
own will. From this was gradually formed a large body of 
dissenters^ as they styled themselves, and in mamtaining 
these views on the one side, and opposing them on the other, 
the controversy became more and more one of philosophy, 
and for some three centuries, with varied learning and skill, 
Arabian scholars and philosophers disputed, warmly, this 
most difiicult and abstruse of metaphysical questions. Fa- 
talism seems ultimately to have prevailed, as, indeed, a doc- 
trine so congenial to error, and to every false system of 
religious beUef, would be quite likely to do, where any such 
system is established. 

The Scholastics and the Heformers. -— Among the sclh> 
lastic divines of the middle ages, some held to the libeity of 



HISTORICAL SKETCH 575 

ibe will, while many allowed only what they callec! the 
liberty of spontaneity^ ^. 6., power to do as ?v^e will, in oppo- 
sition to liberty of indifference^ or power over the detei'- 
minations of the will itself. 

Among the moderns, the Reformers differed among them- 
selves on the matter of liberty, the Lutherans, with Melano 
thon, opposing the scheme of necessity ; Calvin and Bucei 
maintaining it, as the necessary consequence of their views 
of divine predestination. 

Distinguislied modern Advocates of Necessity, — Among 
the philosophical writers of the last and the present century, 
a very strong array of eminent names is on the side of ne- 
cessity. Hobbes, Locke — who is claimed, however, by each 
side — Leibnitz, Collins, Edwards, Priestley, Belsham, Lord 
Kames, Hartley, Mill, advocate openly the doctrine of ne- 
cessitv. 

Doctrine of Hobhes, — The views o^ Hohhes seem to have 
given shape to the opinions of subsequent advocates of thia 
theory. The only liberty which he allows, is that of doing 
what one wills to do, or what the scholastics called the 
liberty of spontaneity. Water is free, and at liberty, when 
nothing prevents it from flowing down the stream. Liberty 
he defines, accordingly, to be ''^the absence of all hnpedi- 
ments to action that are not contained in the nature and 
intrinsical quality of the agentP A man whose hands are 
tied, is not at liberty to go ; the impediment is not in him, 
but in his bands ; while he who is sick or lame, is at liberty, 
because the obstacle is in himsel£ A free agent is one who 
can do as he wills. 

This is essentially the view of freedom adopted by the 
later advocates of necessity, and almost in the same terms 
it is the view of Collins, Priestley, and Edwards. 

Doctrine of Locke, — It is, also, Lockers idea of freedota 
Liberty, he says, is the power of any agent "to do or for- 
bear any particular action, according to the determination 
or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferied 



576 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

to the other " This extends only to the carrying out oui 
roli'tions when formed, and not to the matter of willing or 
preferring; power over the determinations of the will, itself^ 
IS not included in this definition. 

Locke Inconsistent, — In this, Locke was inconsistent with 
liimself, since, in Lis chapter on power, he seems to be main 
taining the doctrine of human freedom. The liberty here 
intended, it has been justly remarked by Bledsoe, is not 
freedom of the will, or of the mind in willing, but only of 
the body ; it refers to the motion of the body, not to the 
action of the mind. 

Locke expressly says, " there may be volition where 
there is no liberty ;" and gives, in illustration, the case of 
a man falling through a breaking bridge, who has volition 
or preference not to fall, but no liberty, since he cannot 
help falling. In this, again, Locke is inconsistent, since, 
elsewhere, he distinguishes between volition and desire or 
preference, while here he does not distinguish them. 

There can be no doubt that Locke supposed himself an 
advocate of human freedom, for such is the spirit of his 
whole treatise, especially of his twenty-first chapter ; at the 
same time, it must be confessed, his definitions are incompkte, 
and his language inconsistent and vacillating, so that there 
is some reason to class him, as Priestley does, with those who 
really adopt the scheme of necessity without knowing or 
intendinof it. 

View of L^ihnitz, — Leibnitz was led to adopt the doc- 
trine of necessity from his general theory of the sufficient 
reason^ that is, that nothing occurs without a reason why it 
should be so, and not otherwise. This principle he carries 
so far as to deny the power of Deity to create two things 
perfectly alike, and the power of either God or man to 
choose one of two things that are perfectly alike. This prin- 
ciple presents the mind as always determined by the greatest 
apparent good, and establishes, as its author supposed, by 



V 



HISTORICAL SKETCH. 577 

the certainly of demonstration, the absolute impossibility of 
free agency. 

View of Collins. — Collins maintains the necessity of alJ 
human actions, from experience, from the impossibility of 
hberty, from the divine foreknowledge, from the nature of 
rewards and punishments, and the nature of morality. H^ 
takes pains to reconcile this doctrine with man's accounta- 
bility and moral agency, and is careful to define his terms 
With great exactness. Thus the terms Hberty and necessity 
are defined as follows : " First, though I deny liberty in a 
certain meaning of the word, yet I contend for liberty as it 
signifies a power in man to do as he wills or pleases. Sec- 
ondly, when I affirm necessity^ I contend only for moral ne- 
cessity^ meaning thereby that man, who is an intelligent and 
sensible being, is determined by his reason and his senses ; 
and I deny man to be subject to such necessity as is in 
clocks and watches, and such other beings, which, for want 
of sensation and intelligence, are subject to an absolute^ 
physical^ or m^echanical necessity. 

Coincidence of Collins and Edwards. — The coincidence 
of these views and definitions, and, indeed, of the plan of 
argument, with the definitions and the arguments of Ed- 
wards, is remarkable. No two writers, probably, were ever 
further removed from each other in their general spirit and 
character, and in their system of religious belief; yet as re- 
gards this doctrine, the definitions and views of one were 
those of the other, and as Mr. Stewart has justly remarked, 
the coincidence is so perfect, that the outline given by the 
former, of the plan of his work, might have served with 
equal propriety as a preface to the latter. 

Views of Edwards. — No writer has more ably discussed 
this question than the elder Edwards. He is universally 
conceded to be one of the ablest metaphysicians, as well as 
theologians, of modern times. His work on the Freedom oi 
the Will is a masterpiece of reasoning. At the same time, 
as to the character and tendency of the system therein may^r 

26 



578 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

tained, the greatest difference of opinion exists. By some 
he IS regarded as a fatalist, by others he is claimed as an ad- 
vocate of human freedom. There ig some ground for this 
difference of opinion. No writer, from Plato downward, 
was ever perfectly self-consistent ; it would be strange if 
Edwards were so. That the" general scheme of necessity, 
maintained by Edwards, tends, in some respects, to fatalism. 
— that the ablest champions of fatalism, and even writers of 
atheistic, and immoral views, have held essentially the sa^me 
doctrine, and maintained it by the same arguments — must be 
conceded ; that such was not the design and spirit of hm 
work, that such was not his own intention, is perfectly 
evident. 

Main Positions of Edwards. — The definitions of Ed- 
wards, as we have already seen, are the same with those of 
Collins and Hobbes. He understands by liberty merely a 
'power to do as one wills. The mind is always determined by 
the greatest apparent good. The motive determines the 
act, causes it. The mind acts, wills, chooses, etc., but the 
motive is the cause of its action. That the mind should be 
the cause of its own volitions, implies, he maintains, an act 
of will preceding the volition, that is a volition prior to voli- 
tion, and so on forever in an infinite series. This argument, 
the famous dictum necessitatis^ has been considered in a 
previous chapter. Now, to say that motive is the producing 
cause, and volition the effect, especially if the connection of 
the two is of the same nature a? that between physical 
causes and effects, as Edwards affirms, is certainly to say 
that which looks very strongly toward fatalism. 

Necessity^ what. — Edwards maTtains the doctrine of 
necessity. But what did he mean by moral necessity} 
The phrase is unfortunate, for reasons already suggested -- 
It do^?s convey the idea of irresistibility, of something 
which must and will he — in spite of all contrary will and en* 
deavor. This, however, he is careful to disclaim. He means 
Dy moral and philosophical necessity simple certainty, 



HISTOfSlCAL SKETCH. 579 

■* nothing different from certainty." " No oppositioi 1 or 
contrary will and endeavor," he says, " is supposable in the 
case of moral necessity, which is a certainty of the inclina* 
tion and will itself." Now we must allow him to put hia 
own meaning upon the terms he uses ; and to say that 
under given circumstances, there being given such and such 
motives, inclinations, and preferences, such and such voli- 
tions will certainly follr^w, is not to say that the will is not 
free in its action — is not to shut us up to absolute fate — 
is not, in fact, to say any thing more than is strictly and 
psychologically true. la defending himself from this very 
charge, he uses the following explicit language in a letter to 
a minister of the Church of Scotland : '' On the contrary, 
I have largely declared, that the connection between anteced- 
ent things and conseq^nt ones^ which takes place with re 
gard to the acts of men's wiUs^ which is called moral neces- 
sity^ is called by the name of necessity improperly ; and 
that such a necessity as attends the acts of men's wills is 
more properly called certainty than necessity ; it being no 
other than the certain connection between the subject anu 
predicate of the proposition which affirms their existence." 
" Nothing that I maintain supposes that men are at all hin- 
dered by any fatal neo^^ssity, from doing, and even willing 
and choosing as they please, with full freedom ; free mth 
the highest degree of liberty that ever was thought of, or 
that could possibly enter into the heart of man to con- 
ceive." This is explicit, and ought to satisfy us as to what 
Edwards himself thought of his own work, and meant by 
it. Still a man does not always understand himself, is not 
always the best judge of his own arguments, is not always 
consistent with himself, does not always express his owe 
real opinions, nor do bimself justice, in every part ' of his 
reasoninofs. This is certainlv the case with Edwards. Wf 
are at a loss to roconciie some passages in his treatise 
with the foregoing extract, e. <7., the dictum necessitatis j 
also his declaration that the difference between natural and 



680 HlbroRICfAL SKETCH 

« 
moral necessity * lies not so much in the nature of the 

connection as in the two terms connected." This is an un- 
fortunate admission for those who would shield him from 
the charge of fatalism. If the necessity, by which a voli- 
tion follows the given motive, is, after all, of the same natur 
with that by which a stone falls to the earth, or watei 
fi^eezes at a given temperature, it is all ovei with us as to 
any consistent, intelligible defence of the freedom of th^ 
will. 

K, moreover, the doctrine of Edwards leaves man full 
power, as he says above, to will and to choose as he pleases, 
what becomes of the dictum^ which makes it impossible for 
the mind to determine its own volitions ? 

Does not distinguish between the Affections and the WiU, 
— It should be remembered that Edwards does not distin- 
guish between the will and affections. This distinction had 
not, at that time, been clearly drawn by writers on the phi- 
losophy of the mind. The twofold division of mental powers, 
into understanding and will, was then prevalent ; the affec- 
tions, of course, were classed with the latter. Hence there 
is not that definiteness in the use of terms which modern 
psychology demands. Had Edwards distinguished between 
the affections and the will, it must have given a different 
cast to his entire work. Even Locke, whose philosophy 
Edwards follows in the main, had distinguished between 
will and desire^ as we have already seen ; but in this he is 
not followed by Edwards, who, while he does not regard 
them as " words of precisely the same signification," yet 
does not think them "so entirely distinct that they can 
ever be said to 7*un counter^ 

Views of the later Necessitarians, — Of the views of the 
later advocates of necessity, Priestley, Belsham, Diderot, and 
others, of that school, we have already spoken in a previous 
chapter. They carry out the scheme, with the greatest bold 
ness and consistency, to its legitimate consequences, fatalism, 
and the denial of free agency and accountability. God ;a 



HISTORICAL SKETCH. 581 

eiie real and only responsible doer of whatever comes to pass, 
and man the passive instrument in his hand. Remorse, rfv 
gret, repentance, are idle terms, and to praise or blame our-- 
selves or others, for any thing that we or they have done, is 
merely absurd. 

Advocates of the Opposite, — On the other hand, the do<v 
trine of the freedom of the will has not wanted able advo 
caies among the more recent philosophical wiiters. In 
general it may be remarked, that those who have treated of 
the powers of the human mind, as psychologists, have, for 
the most part, maintained the essential freedom of the will, 
while the advocates of the opposite view have been chiefly 
metaphysicians, rather than psychologists, and, in most cases, 
have viewed the matter from a theological rather than a 
philosophical point of view. Among the more recent and 
able advocates of the freedom of the \^11, are Cousin and 
Joufiroy, in France, Tappan and Bledsoe, in our own country. 
Previously, Mr. Stewart, in his appendix to his *' Active and 
Moral Powers," had concisely, but very ably, handled the 
matter, and earlier still, Kant, in Germany, had conceded 
the liberty of the wili as a matter of consciousness^ while 
unable to reconcile it with the dictates of reason. 

Yiew of Hamilton, — Substantially the same view is taken 
by the late Sir William Hamilton, who, by general consent, 
stands at the head of modern philosophers, and who accepts 
the doctrine of liberty as a/ac^, an immediate dictum of con- 
sciousness, while, at the same time, he is unable to conceive 
of its possibility, since "to conceive a free act, is to conceive 
All act which, being a cause, is not, in itself, an effect ; in 
other words, to conceive an absolute commencement ;'' and 
this he regards as impossible. At the same time, it is equally 
beyond our power, he thinks, to conceive the possibility of 
the opposite, the doctrine of necessity, since that supposes 
*' an infinite series of determined causes^"^^ which cannot be 
conceived. But though inconceivable, freedom is not the 
less a fact giveu by consciousness • and is to be placed in the 



582 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

same category with many other facts among the phenomena 
of mind, '' which we must admit as actual, but of whose pos- 
sibility we are wholly unable to form a notion." 

JReraarhs upon this View, — The difficulty here presented, 
— if I may venture a remark upon the opinions of so profound 
a thinker, and the same is true of Kant, — turns evidently on 
the peculiar idea of freedom entertained by those writers, 
namely, that in order to be free, an act of the will must be 
wholly undetermined, not itself an effect, but an absolute 
commencement. Any influence, from any source, going to 
determine or incline a man to will as he does, renders the 
act no longer free. Such freedom is certainly inconceivable; 
and what is more, impracticable ; it exists as little among the 
possibilities of the actual world, as among the possibilities of 
thought. We never act, except under the influence of mo^ 
tive and inclination ; and if acts thus performed are not free, 
then no acts that we perform are so. 

Vieio of Coleridge. — This eminent disciple of the earliei 
German philosophy, derives from Kant the view of freedom 
now explained, and carries it to the furthest extreme. All 
influence and inclination are inconsistent with freedom. 
The disposition to do a thing renders the will, and the act 
of th^ will, no longer free. A nature., of any kind, is incon- 
sistent with freedom. This, of course, shuts out all freedom 
from the actual world. Nor is it possible to conceive how 
even the acts of Deity can be any more free than ours, on 
this supposition ; nor how, if any such freedom as this were 
supposed to exist, an act thus performed, without any motive^ 
or any disposition or inclination on the part of the agentj 
could be a rational or accountable act. 

Vieif^s of Cousin^ and Jouffroy. — Cousin and Jouffroy^ 
while by no means denying the influence of motive upon 
the mind, place the fact of liberty in the power which the 
mind has of being itself a cause, and of putting forth voli- 
tions from its own proper power. The law of inertia, con 
tends Jouflroy, which requires a moving force proportion*; J 



HISTORICAL SKETCH. 683 

to the movement of a material body, does not apply to the 
human mind, and " to apply this law to the relation whicih 
subsists between the resolutions of my wiU and the motives 
which act upon it, is to suppose that my being, that I my- 
self, am not a cause ; for a cause is something which pro* 
duces an act by its own proper power." Cousin, in like 
manner, places liberty in the absolute and undetermined 
power of the will to act as cause ; and " this cause, in ordei 
to produce its effect, has need of no other theatre, and nc 
other instrument than itself. It produces it directly, with 
out any thing intermediate, and without condition ; * * « 
being always able to do what it does not do, and able not 
to do what it does. Here, then, in all its plenitude, is the 
characteristic of liberty." 

View of Tappan, — One of the ablest defenders of the 
freedom of the will in our own country, Mr. Tappan, in his 
review of Edwards, takes essentially the position just ex- 
plained. All cause lies ultimately in the will. It is this which 
makes the nisus or effort that produces any event or phenom- 
enon. Of this nisus the mind or will is itself the cause, and, as 
such, it is self-moved. It makes its nisus of itself, and of it- 
self it forbears to make it, and within the sphere of its activity, 
and in relation to its objects, it has the power of selecting, by 
a mere arbitrary act, any particular object. It is a cauise, all 
whose acts, as well as any particular act, considered as phe- 
nomena demanding a cause, are accounted for in itself alone. 

Position of Bledsoe, — Similar is the position of Mr. 
Bledsoe, one of the most recent reviewers of Edwards, a 
writer of marked ability and candor. He denies, however, 
that volition is the effect of any thing, whether motive of 
mind, in the sense that motion of the arm is an effect. It 
is activity^ action^ the cause of action^ but not effect. In 
distinction from most writers of the same theological views, 
he denies that the will is self 'determined^ or that it is deter-- 
mined at all^ and by any thing. It is the determiner^ but 
not the determined^ 



.<^A y 



> 



^' 



^ 



// 






V, 



^^ ^ 



d/^l~. 



' o-<-^ 




V 



At f 






4 



t-t'%^ -^ A^<t.-C^"^ 



^ 



REFERENCES. 

Among tlie authorities wfiicK Mve bem consmted in the 
preparation of this work, the following^ may be referred to, 
with profit, by the reader who desires to pursue tk^ subject 
farther. 

I. THE INTELLECT. 

A ON THE INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES IN GENERAL 

Loche, — Essays on the Human Understanding. 

Reid, — Essays on the Intellectual Powers. Walker Ed. 

** Works. — By Hamilton, with notes and dissertations, 
DugaM Stewart — Philosophy of the Human Mind. Bowen Ed. 

" Philosophical Essays. 

Brown. — Lectures on the Philosophy of the Mind. 
The works of Vpham, Wayland, Winslow, Mohan, may also be consulted, 
mth profit 
Cousin. — Cours de, 1828. Id., 1829. 

" Fragments Philosophiques. 

Jouffroy. — Melanges Philosophiques. NouveUes Melanges. 

" Esquisses de D. Stewart. Preface. 

Desca/rtes, — Meditations. Id., Discours de la Metnode. 
Leibnitz. — Nouveaux Essais sur I'Entendement Humain. 
Malehranche. — Recherche de la Yerite. 
Royer Collard. — GEuvres de Reid. Fragments. 
Damiron. — Cours de Philosophic. 
Hegel. — Encyklopadie der Philosoph. Wissenchaft. 
Rosenkrantz. — Psychologic. 
Kant. — Anthropologic. Kritik Reiner Yornunft. 

« Kritik der Urtheilskraft. 
Aristoilc — Metaphysics. 
" On the Soul. 

Plato. — Republic. 
Cicero. — Tusculanae Questiones. 



686 REFERENCES. 



S • 



B. ON THE SPECIFIC FACULTIES. 

I. SENSATIOlJr AND PERCEPTION. 

Reid. — Intellectual Powers. 

ITamilton. — Supplementary Dissertation, Note D« 

G. Wight — Philosophy of Sir "W. Hamilton. Part IL 

Stewart. — Philosophical Essays. Ess. IL 

Brown. — Philosophy of Human Mind. 

MUL — Analysis of Human Mind. 

A. Smith, — Essays on Philosophical Subjects. Of the External Sensea 

Young. — Lectures on Intellectual Philosophy, 

Comte. — Philosophy Positive. 

Muller. — Elements of Physiology. 

Tissot. — Anthropologie. 

Maine de Biran. — Nouvelles Considerations sur les Rapports, etc. 

Jouffroy. — Nouvelles Melanges Philosophiques. 

Boyer CoUard. — Fragments in Jouffroy's (Euvres de Reid. 

Tortual, — Die Sinne des Menschen. 

Buffier. — Traite des Premieres Yerites. 

Amedee Jacques. — Psychologic. Manuel de PhU i Tusage des CoIL 

Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiques. Art. Sens. 

AristoUe, — De Anima, Parva NaturaUa. 

J. Baaih. Saint Hilaire. — Psychologic de Aristotle. Noies aad pre&oo 



II. MEMORY. 

Stewart — Intellectual Philosophy. 

JReid. — Intellectual Powers. (Walker.) 

Brown. — Philosophy of Human Mind, 

MiU. — .Analysis of Human Mind. 

Ahercomhie. — On Intellectual Powers. 

Hume. — Treatise on Human Nature. Book L Part L 

Aristotle. — Parva Naturaha. 

Bartheleme Saint Hilaire. — Psychologic d' Aristotle. Part IT. 

Malebranche. — Recherche de la Verite. liv. IL 

Rosenkrantz. — Psychologie. 

Bicfjfel. — EncycL Phil Wissench. Dritter ThoiL 



REFERENCES. 587 

III. IMAGINATIOJ^. 

Stewart, — Intellectual Philosophy. 

Jhown. — Philosophy of Human Mind. 

Ranch. — Psychologie. Part II. 

Sidney Smith. — Sketches of Philosophy, 

Mill. — Analysis of Human Mind. 

Amedee Jacques, — Manuel de Philosophic. PsychoL V 

Rosenkrantz. — Psychologie. Die EinUldungskrafU 

Hegel. — Encyc. der Phil. Wissenchaft. Dritter TheiL D% ^Inbildung. ■ 

IV. ABSTRACTION AND GBNER ALIS i »• ION. 

Reid, — Intellectual Powers. 

Brown. — Philosophy of Human Mind. 

Stewart. — Intellectual Philosophy. 

A. Smith. — Considerations on First Formation of Language, 

J. S. Mill — System of Logic. 

Whewell. — Philosophy of Inductive Sciences. 

James Mill. — Analysis of Human Mind. 

Thomson. — Laws of Thought 

Cousin. — Elements of Psychology. (Henry.) 

Hume. — Treatise of Human Nature. Book L Part L 

Y. REASONING, 

Hamilton. — Supplementary Dissertation, Note A. 
Reid. — Intellectual Powers. 
Stewart. — Intellectual Philosophy. Part IL 
Locke. — On the Human Understanding. Book IV. 
Whewell. — Philosophy of Inductive Sciences. 
Buffier. — Premieres Yerites. 
Brown. — Philosophy of Human Mind. 
Mill. — System of Logic. 

Hamilton. — Discussions on Philosophy. (TumbuU Ed.) Article IV. Logi 
bIso Appendix II. A and B. 
Baynes.—'^QW Analytic of Logical Forms. 
Descartes. — Discours de la Methode. 
CondiUac — Art de Penser. 

Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiqucs. Logiquo. 
Rascal — Pensees — de 1' Art de Persuader. 
Port-Royal. — Logique. 
Aristotle — Org^on. 



588 BEFERENCES. 

yi. INTUITIVE CONCEPTION. 

FIRST PRINCIPLES. 

Eeid. - • Intellectual Powers. Essay YL, cap. IIL 

Hamilton, — Dissertation A. §§ 3, 4, 5. 

Stewart, — Intellectual Philosophy. Part IX, cap. L 

Coleridge. — Aids to Reflection. 

MiU. — System of Logic. Book II., caps. Y. and VL 

Baffler, — Premieres Yerites. Part L, cap. YIL 

TIME, SPACE. 

Ckmsin. — Cours de Philosophic. Tome 11., Le9ons XYIt , XVill. 

" Idem. Elements of Psychologic. Henry. Cap. IIL 

Locke. — iiasay on ihe Human Understanding. Book IL, cap. XXYI 
Stewart. — Philosophical Essays. Essay IL, cap. 11. 
Reid. — Intellectual Powers. Essay IIL, cap. IL 
Mill. — Analysis of the Human Mind. Cap. XI Y., § Y. 
Royer Collar d. — Fragments, IX, X. 

Kant. — Kritik rein, vemunft. Transcend, -^sthet. Part J., § IL 
Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiques. Temps. Espace, 
Eegel. — Encycbp. Philosoph. Wissench. Tsweiter Theil. Erst. AbfdiBJitt 

IDENTITT. 

Locfce. — Essay, etc. Book IL, cap. XXYII. 

Cousin. — Review of do. as above. Elements Psychologie, cap. IIL 

Eeid. ■ — Intellectual Powers. Essay IIL, cap. IIL 

Mill — Analysis, etc., cap. XIY,, § YII. 

Whately, — Logic — Appendix. On Ambiguous Tenpa. 

Butler, — Dissertation on Identity. 

CASUALITT. 

HUL — System of Logia Book IIL, cap. XXL 

Whewell. — Philosophy of Inductive Sciences. Part I. Book UI. 

Locke. — Essay. Book IL, cap. XXYI. 

Tappam,. — On the Will. Cap. II. Cause. 

Bowen. — Metaphysics and Ethics. 

Main^ de Biran. — Examples des Le9ons de Philosophie de Laromiqui^rt 

Cousin, — CEuvres de Maine Biran. Preface. 

As above. El. Psychologies cap. lY. 



REFERENCES 581» 

THE BEA.UTIFUL. 

Rames. — Elements of CriticiBrtL 

Alison, — On Taste. 

McDermoi — On Taste. 

Siewa/rt. — Philosophical Essays. Part II. 

Brown, — Philosophy of the Human Mind. Emotions of Beauty. 

Jouffroy. — Cours d'Esthetique. 

Covsin, — Philosophy of the Beautiful. (Daniel, Trans.) 

Kant. — Kritik der Urtheilskraft. 

HegeL — Cours d'Esthetique. (Benard, Tr.) 

THE RIGHT. 

Stewart —Active and Moral Powers. (Walker Ed.> 

Brown. — Philosophy of the Human Mind. Ethical Science. 

Butler, — Sermons. 

Paley. — Moral Philosophy. 

Adam Smith. — Theory of Moral Sentiments. 

7pham. — Mental Philosophy. YoL II. 

Winslow. — Elements of Moral Philosophy. 

Wayland. — Moral Philosophy. 

Whewell. — Elements of MoraUty. 

Jouffroy. — Introduction to Ethics. (Channing, Tr.) 

" Cours de Droit Natural 

Emile Saisset. — Manuel de Philosophie a I'usage des Coll Morals, 
Descartes. — Lettres. 
Cicero, — De Officiis. 
Arisioile. — Nicom. Eth. 
Plato — Republic and G-orgiaa 



II. THE SENSIBILITIES 

Stewa/rt — Active and Moral Powers. (Walker Ed.) 

RM, ^ Fftciilti«a of the Human Mind. Essay TTI. 

Brown, — PhUosophy of the Human Mind. Emotums, 

Upham, — Mental Philosophy. Vol IL 

Cogan, — On the Passions. 

Descartes — lies Passions de TAmo. 

CondiUac — Traite des Sensations. 

Damiron - Cours de Philosophie. De la Sensihiliie. 



590 REFERENCES. 

Jmiffroy, — Melanges Philosophiques. De V Amour do Soi, 
Aristotla. — On the Soul. Books II. and III 



III. THE WILL. 

[ Edkards. — On the WilL 
Tapjpan. — Review of do. 
Day, — Review of do. 
Bledsoe. — Examination of do. 
I. Taylor. — Essay introductory to do. 
Tappan. — On the WiU, and do. on Moral Agency. 
MaJian. — On the WilL 
Upha/m. — On the WilL 

Reid. — On the Faculties of the Human Soul. Essay lY. 
Belsham. — Philosophy of the Human Mind. 
Mill — System of Logic. Book YI., cap. II. 
MiU. — Analysis of the Human Mind. Cap. XXIY. 
Cogan. — Ethical Questions. Question lY. 
Stewart — Active and Moral Powers. Cap. YI. 
Reid, — Essays on Active Powers. Essay II. 
Locke. — On the Human Understanding. Book II., cap. XXI. 
Hamilton. — Philosophy of the Conditioned, cap. II., § 1. (0. W. Wight.) 
Jouffroy. — Introduction to Ethics, § lY. 
Leibnitz. — Essays de Theodicee. 
Cousin. — Fragments Philosophiques. Preface. 

^mecZee Jacgt^e^. — Manuel de PhiL Psychologies VohntL XY. — XY.II 
Maine de Biran. — CEuvres. Yol. lY. 

" Controversy with Clarke. 

Cousin. — Psychologic. (Henry, Tr.) Cap. X. 
Lcmiiron, — Psychologie. Liv. I., § II., cap. IIL 
EnaU Saisset — Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiquea Art. Libert^ 



Sheldon Jb Companj/'s l^ext'-^ooks. 



HISTOEIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

By Benson J. Lossing, author of " Field-Book of the Revolu- 
tion," " Illustrated Family History of the United States," &c. 



Lossing^s Primary History. For Beginners. A charm- 
ing little book. Elegantly illustrated. 238 pages. Price $.100. 

Lossinr/^s Outline History of the United States. One 

volume, 12mo. Price $1.25. We invite the careful attention of 
teachers to some of its leading points. In elegance of apioear- 
ance and copiou^n illustrations, both by pictures and maps, we 
think it surpasses any book of the kind yet published. 

1. The work is marked by uncommon cleai^ness of statement. 

2. The narrative is divided into SIX DISTINCT J^UItlODS, naraely : 
Discoveries f^ Settlements, Colonies f The Mevolution, The Nation, 
and The Civil War and its consequences.'' 

3. The work is arrajiged in short se^itences, so that the substance of 
each may be easily comprehended. 

4. The most important events are indicated in the text by lieavy- 
faced letter. 

5. Full Questions are framed for every verse. 

6. A. l*ronouncin(/ Vocabulary is furnished in foot-notes wherever 
required. 

7. A. Drief Syfiopsis of topics is e-iven at the close of eacJi section. 

8. An Outline History of IMPORTANT EVENTS is given at the close 
of every chapter. 

9. The work is profusely illustrated by Maps, Charts and Plans ex- 
planatory of the text, and by carefully-drawn pictures of objects and events. 

Lossing^s Common School History. 883 pages. Price 
$1.75. Containing the National Constitution, Declaration of 
Independence, Biographies of the Presidents, and Questions. 

This work is arranged in six chapters, each containing the record of an im- 
portant period. The First exhibits a general view of the Aboriginal race 
who occupied the continent when the Europeans came. The Second is a 
record of all the Discoveries and preparations for settlement made by indi- 
viduals and governments. The Third delineates the progress of all the Settle- 
ments until colonial governments were formed. The Fourth tells the story 
of these Colonies from their infancy to maturity, and illustrates the continual 
development of democratic ideas and republican tendencies which finally 
resulted in a political confederation. The Fifth has a full account of the im- 
portant events of the War for Independence ,' and the Sixth gives a con- 
cise History of the Mepublic from its formation to the present time. 



These books are designed for dififerent grades of pupils, and adapted to the 
time usually allowed for the study of this important subject. Each embraces 
the history of our country from its discovery to its present administration. 
The entire series is characterized by chasteness and clearness of style, accuracy 
of statement, beauty of typography, and fullness of illustration. The author 
has spent the srreater part of his life in collecting materials for, and in writing 
history, and his ability and reputation are a sufficient guarantee that the work 
has been thoroughly done, and a series of histories produced that will be in- 
valuable in training and educating the youth of our country. 



^^IfVUt'^' /J 






ON 



/ 






/ 









